NO. 07-08 -015 1-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B OC TOBER30, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ AN NA R OBERTS, Appel lan t
v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 15 4 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L AM B CO UNT Y; TH NO. 404 4; HON. FELIX KLEI N, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Anna R ober

ts, appell ant, appeal s a judg ment rev oki ng her probati on or

co mmunity super v is ion

. Vi a a si ng le is sue, she cont ends the tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on i n doi ng so. W e aff ir m the jud g ment as modi fied.2 Back ground Appel lan t w as conv icted of del iv er ing a cont ro ll ed s ubst ance in a dr ug free z one and re cei v ed a ten year

se ntenc e. Thereafter , the tr ial co urt pl aced her on “ shoc k” probati on for a per iod of ten years. W it hin a y ear , how ev er , the State mov ed to rev oke her probati on. T h a t a tt e m p t b e in g un su cc e ss f u l, i t f ile d a se co n d m o ti o n se e kin g th e sa m e rel ie f . T h ro u gh it, app ellantwas accuse d of 1) comm itting two ne w

of fense s and 2) fa iling to m ake m ont hly pay ments on her

fine, cour

t cos ts and fees, to compl ete h er co mmunity

se rv ic e hours, to reimb urse the coun ty for her court ap poin ted atto rney, to atte nd su bsta nce a buse coun seling, and to execute a pau per’s af f idavit w hen she de fa ulted on he r mon thly f inan cial obligations. Appe llant ple d true to three of the six allegation s, and the trial court found that she had v iol ated her probati on byfail ing to 1) pay the fees due for th e months of June and July

o f 2 007 , 2) comp lete h er com mu nity serv ice hou rs, 3) atten d sub stan ce a b u se co u n se lin g, an d 4 ) e xec u te th e p a u p e r’s a f f id a vit. T h e la tt e r th re e f in d in gs en c o mp a s s e d t h e a l l e g a t i o n s t o w h i c h s h e p l e d t r u e . Th i s l e d t o t h e re v o cat ion of her communi ty

su per v is ion

. Iss ue - Ab used Disc retion App ellantconte nde d in her single issue tha t the trial court abu sed its discretio n in re v o kin g h e r probati on. This was so becau se she all eg edl y was unabl e to per

form the du ti es i mp os ed o n he r d ue t o her pu r po rte d fi na nc i al c on di ti on , he r p ur po rte d ti me c om mi tm en ts , i nfo r ma ti on p ur po rte dl y g i v en h er

b y h er p rob at i on offi c er , an d th e s am e of f icer purpo rtedly neglecting to ask he r to comp lete th e pa upe r’s aff idavit. W e overrule the i ss ue.3

Standa rd

of Rev iew W het her to revoke on e's prob ation is a q uest ion w hich lies w ithin th e trial court's cons ide re d di sc re ti on. DeG ay v. State , 741 S.W .2d 445, 449 (Tex

. Cr im. App.19 87) ; Hun t
v. State , 5 S.W .3d 83 3, 83 4- 35 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 1999, pet. re f’d)

. Before that discretion can be ex ercised in favor of revocation , it mu st be show n by a prep ond eran ce of the e v ide nce that the i ndi v idu al v iol ated a ter m of his probati on. See C obb v . St ate , 851 S.W .2d 8 7 1 , 8 7 3 ( T e x. Cr im. App. 1993)( re q uir ing proof bya preponderance of the evidence). Moreover, tha t burde n can be satisf ied by the accu sed p lead ing true to at lea st one of the all eg ati ons lev ied by the Stat e, ev en i f the ac cus ed bel iev ed and attempt ed to prov e tha t he had a v iab le defense. Mo ses v. Sta te , 59 0 S. W .2 d 46 9, 4 70 ( Tex

. C r i m. App. [Panel Op. ] 197 9) ; Col e v . St ate , 578 S. W .2d 1 27, 1 28 ( Tex . C ri m. App. [Pa nel Op. ] 1979)

. Ana lysis As prev iou sl y

menti oned, appel lan t pl ed tr ue to some of the al leg ati ons made i n the moti on to rev oke. H av ing done so, the tr ial co urt had basi s to g ra nt t he moti on. That s he mayhav e had re asons w hic h s he bel iev ed j ust ified her co nductmatte rsnot g iv en her ple as. M ore i mport antl y , v ar iou s o f her ex cus es w ere s ubje ctt o debat e and dependent upo n he r credib ility . Th us, th e trial court cou ld w ell ha ve o p t e d n o t to be liev e he r. Con seq uentl y , we fin d n o abus ed di sc re ti on on the p art of the tr ial co urt i n g ra nti ng the Stat e’s moti on. W e do note, howev er , t hat appel lan t or ig ina ll y pl ed g uil ty

to and was conv icted o f del iv er ing a c ontroll ed s ubst ance in a dr ug free z one. Y et, the j udg ment rev oki ng her4

probati on des cr ibe d the co nv icti on as pos ses si ng a cont ro ll ed subst ance w it hin a dr ug free
z one. T hus, w e modifythe latter judg ment (dat ed F ebr uar y 8, 2008)to re flectthe act ual conv icti on, t hat i s, the d eli v er y of a c ontroll ed s ubst ance in a dr ug free z one. So modi fied, we aff ir m the jud g ment.
Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice
Do not p ubl is h.