### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 08 -0 00 21 -C R

______________________________ MEL VIA SMI TH, Appe llant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appea l from the 115th J udicial District Court

Marion County , Texas Trial Court No. F 13,459

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice MoseleyW e no te t hat th e ju dgmen t ori ginal ly pl aci ng S mi th on com mu ni ty superv is io n l is ts "T EX . 1 P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 49.08," which is the wrongstatute for the offe nse. This e rror was c orre cted on the judg ment revokingher c ommunity supervision. 2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Melvia Smith appeals the re vocation of he r community sup er v i sion for the off

ense of intox ication assault. SeeT EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 49.07 (Ve rnon S upp. 2007). She was sente nced 1 S ep t em b er

1 3 , 2 0 0 5 , t o fi v e y ea rs ' i mp ri s o n m en t(p ro b at e d f o r f i v e y ea rs ), co urt co s t s , at t o rn ey 's fee s, a $250.00 fine, and $8,000.00 restitution. The costs, fine, and restitution wer e not probated. He r c omm

un ity su pe rv isi on wa s r e vo ke d Jan

ua ry 28 , 2 00 8, and

sh e wa s se ntenc ed to tw o y e ars ' imp ri so nme nt. Smit h contends the e vidence is leg ally and fa ctually

insufficient to support the revoc ation of her c ommunity

supervision. The State a lleg ed in its petition to revoke that Smit h had viol ated five separ ate c onditions of h e r s u p e r v i s i o nb y ( 1 ) f

a i l i n g t o r e p o rtt o h e r

s u p e r v i s i o no f f i c e r f o r th e m o n th s o f

J un e , J u l y, Aug ust, September, and N ovember of 2007; (2) f ailing to a void injurious and vicious habits by using marihuana

and coc aine; ( 3 ) fa i l i ng to perfor m 160 hours of community service ; (4) fa iling to pay
c ourt c os ts, fi ne , atto rn e y ' s f

e e s, and re sti tut ion

a t th e ra te of $1 60 .0 0 pe r mon th; and (5 ) f a ili ngto
a tte nd and su c c e ssf ull y c omp le te the dr ivi ngwh ile int oxic a te d r e pe a t of fe nd e r p ro g ra

m. Smit h pled " true" to all five alleg ations. After her ple as of " tru e, " Smi th stated she wa s disabled and, due to other circumstance s, had bee n unable to pay the re stitut ion and other f ees due
.3

Although ina

bility to pay is an affirmative defense , trig g ering a re quirement for the State to prove by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e (1) that Smit h had the ability to make the pa

y ments require d and (2) that her f

ailure to make such pay

ments was intentional, se e Fl e tc he r v . S tate , 547 S.W .2d 634, 63 6 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 77 ), we ne e d n ot r e a c h th e iss ue of wh e the r the State pr ov e d Smit h wa s a ble to pay the re stitut ion and intentionally failed to make the pay

ment s . A pl ea of

"tr ue" to even one alleg ation is sufficient to support a judg ment revoking community supervision. Col e v . S

tate , 578 S.W. 2d 12 7, 12 8 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. [Pan e l O p. ] 197 9) ; Le wis v . S tate , 1 9 5 S. W. 3 d

2 0 5 , 2 0 9 ( T e x. Ap p. —Sa n A nto nio 20 06 , n o p e t.) ; see Mo se s v . S tate , 590 S.W .2d 469, 470 (Tex
. Crim. App. [Pan e l O p. ] 197 9) . H e re , Sm ithple d " tr ue " to a ll fi ve a lle g a tio ns c on ta ine d in t he State ' s mo tio n to revoke . I n light of t h e fa ct that there are uncontested g rounds to support the re vocation of
c omm un ity su pe rv isi on , the fa c t that she ra ise d any a ff ir mativ e de fe ns e do e s not af fe c t th e outc ome
o f t h e p ro ce ed i n g. We overrule this point of er ror. I n her se cond point of er

ror, Smith alleg es the trial court abused its discretion by revoking he r c omm un ity su pe rv isi on . A s sta te d ab ov e , Smith ple d " tr ue " to a ll f

ive a lle g a tio ns c on ta ine d in th e S tat e's pet it io n t o rev ok e. "S u ch p leawas alo ne s uff ici ent to supp ort revo cat io n. " Jiminez v

. Sta te , 552 S.W .2d 469, 472 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). The trial c ourt did not abuse its discretion in revokingSmit h' s community supervision. We overrule this point of er ror.4

We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt
.

Ba iley C. Moseley J ustice Date Submitted: J uly 7, 2008 Date D ecide d: J uly 8, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh