## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 1 4 - 00 142 - CR

LETICIA MCWILLIAMS APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 1174 887D

---------- 

### MEMORAND UM OPINION 1

---------- I. I NTRODUCTION Appellant Leticia McWilliams appeals from the revocation of her community supervision

. In her sole point, McWilliams argues that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking her community supervision and by sen tencing he r to four years’ imprisonment. We will affirm.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 II. P ROCEDURAL B ACKGROUND On January 19, 2010, McWilliams pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to the third

- degree felony of intoxication assault. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.07 (West 2011). T he trial court sentenced McWil liams to ten years’ confinement; imposed a $1,000 fine ; suspended the sentence; and placed McWilliams on community supervis ion for a period of ten years. On July 22, 2011, t he State filed a petition to revoke McWilli ams’s commu nity supervision. Three months later, t he State filed a motion to dismiss its petition to revoke , and the trial court dismissed the petition, continued McWilliams’s community supervision, and imposed additional condit ions of community supervisi on. The State filed a second petition to revoke McWilliams’s community supervision on February 4, 2014, alleging that McWilliams had violated multiple conditions of her community supervision. Specifically, the State alleged that McWilliams was ordered b y the trial court to submit to supervision by the Supervision with Immediate Enforcement (SWIFT) Court and that she had violated th at condition when she was discharged from the SWIFT Court for noncompliance , as follows : a. The Defendant failed to instal l the I n - H ome monitoring device as court ordered and directed by Tarrant County CSCD in the month of January 2014

. b. The Defendant fai led to submit a urine specimen or a non

- diluted urine specimen on or about January 30, 2014 as directed by Tarrant Coun ty CSCD

.3

The State also alleged that McWilliams had violated additional conditions of her community supervision when she failed to pay the supervision fee of $60 or any other amount on the fifteenth day for the various months during the period from April 2010 to January 2014, as listed in the petition (Paragraph 2); failed to install the in

- home monitoring device in January 2014 (Paragraph 3) ; 2 failed to pay for urine testing for eight months during the period from 2012 to 2014 (Paragraph 4); failed to pa y for electronic monitoring fees and owed a total balance of $2,425 (Paragraph 5); and failed to obtain or verify employment for July 2012 throu gh January 2014 (Paragraph 6). At the revocation hearing , McWilliams pleaded “not true” to the allegations
in the State’s second petition to revoke

. After hearing testim ony from McWilliams’s community supervision officer, McWilliams’s SWIFT community supervision officer, and McWilliams, t he trial court found the allegations in Paragraphs 1 a, 1b, 2, 3 , and 4 of th e State’s second petition to revoke to be true and sentenced McWilliams to four years’ confinement. 3
III. N O A BUSE OF D ISCRETION In her sole point, McWilliams argues that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking her community supervision and by sentencing her to four

2 The State notes in its brief that the allegation in Paragraph 1a is repeated in Paragraph 3.

3 The judgment does not contain findings related to the allegations in Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the State’s second petition to revoke

.4

yea rs’ imprisonment. McWilliams argues that all of the violations alleged in the State’s second petition to revoke, other than a single act of failing to submit a urine specimen, were based on her failure to do act s that w ere found ed on financial obligation s and that there was no proof that she had the ability to mee t those financial obligations. We review an order revoking community supervision under an abuse of discretion standard. Rickels v. State , 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 ( Tex. Cri m. App. 2006); Cardona v. State , 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 ( Tex. Crim. App. 1984). In a revocation proceeding, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated the terms and conditions of community supervision. Cobb v. State , 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 ( Tex. Crim. App. 1993). The trial court is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony, and we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial
court ’ s ruling. Cardona , 66 5 S.W.2d at 493; Garrett v. State , 619 S.W.2d 172,
174 ( Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981). If the State fails to meet its burden of proof, the trial court abuse s its discretion by revoking the community supervision. Cardona , 665 S.W.2d at 493

– 94. The rec ord reve als that the trial court added supplemental condition s of community supervision on September 24, 2012, requiring McWilliams to submit to supervision by the SWIFT Court and to submit a valid, nondiluted, and nonadulterated urine, hair, blood, breath , or saliva sample for testing according to the tim e and manner direct ed by the supervision officer. Two weeks later,5

McWilliams signed a document entitled “SWIFT Court Warning,” which stated that sh e was required to call the drug

- test hotline every weekd ay and, if selected,
to report for testing before 3:00 p.m. that same day

. In bold at the bottom of the warning, it stated, “I have read or have had the S.W.I.F.T. program explained to me. I understand also that my probation can be revoked fo r any violat ion of probation.” During the revocation hearing, McWilliams’s SWIFT community supervision officer testified that McWilliams was discharged from SWIFT for noncompliance, which included failing to submit a urine specimen on January 30,
2014. 4 McWilliams testi fied that she presented on January 30 , 2014, to give a urine specimen but that she left at 1:35 or 1:40 p.m. before giving a sample because her mother had to be at work. On cross

- examination, McWilliams admitted that she did not give a urin e specimen on January 30, 2014, and that she understood that was a condition of her probation and a condition of the SWIFT order. On appeal , McWilliams does not deny that she failed to submit a

u rine sample on January 30, 2014. I nstead, she argues that “her failur e to submi t a urine sample was beyond [her] control and [that] she was in fact pres ent and able to submit a sample[;] she just could not stay all afternoon due to her mother[’]s work.”

4 The record includes a letter from McWilliams’s community supervision officer to the trial court stating that McWilliams was discharged from the SWIFT Court for “noncompliance” on January 31, 2014

— the day following her fail ure to provide a urine specimen

.6

Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court ’s ruling, we hold that the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that McWilliams violated the condition of her community supervision that required her
to submit to supervision by the SWIFT Court when she failed to submit a uri ne specimen on Janu ary 30, 2014

. See Cobb , 851 S.W.2d at 873 ; see also Sanchez v. State , No. 01

- 13

- 00631

- CR, 2014 WL 3107659, at *3 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] July 8, 2014, no pet. ) (mem. op. , not designated for publicatio n) (holding that trial court did not abuse its d iscretion by revoking appellant’s community supervision on the ground that he had failed to submit urine samples on four occasions) . Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking McWilliams’s community supervision and sentencing her to four years’ confinement. See Rickels , 202 S.W.3d at 763 ; see also Moore v. State , 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980) (holding that proof of any one violation is sufficient to support revocation order)

. We overrule Mc Williams’s sole point.7 I V. C ONCLUSION Having overruled McWilliams’s sole point, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. /s/ Sue Walker SUE WALKER JUSTICE
PANEL: DAUPHINOT, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: December 18, 2 014