Opinion filed Jan uary30 , 2 009



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

____________ 

### No. 1 1- 07 -0 01 45 -CR

____ ____ __ JOHN WE LDO N WE ATH ERL Y, Ap pellant

V.
STA TE OF TEX AS , A ppellee

On App eal from the County Court
P alo P into Coun ty, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 49467

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Th is i s a n a p p e a l f r o m a j u d gm e nt re vo kin g c omm

un ity su pe rv isi on . Joh n We ldo n We a the rl y pleade d nolo contender e to the misdemea nor of fe nse of r esisting a

rre st. The trial cour

t convicted appellant of the offe nse and assessed his punishment at confine ment for 180 day s and a $500 fine. Pursuant to the plea ba

rg ain ag ree ment, the trial cour t suspended the imposition of the sentenc e and place d appellant on c ommunity supervision for two year s. L ater , the trial cour t ext ended the term of appe llant’s comm u n i t y s u p er vision for six months. The State filed a motion and a n amende d2

motion to revoke appe llant’s community supervision. Appellant plea ded not true to the State’s all ega t i o n s . Following a hea ring , the trial cour

t found that appe llant had violated the ter ms and conditions of his community supervision, revoke d his community supervision, and imposed a

se nte nc e of

c on fi ne me nt f

or 18 0 d ay s in

the Pa lo P int o Co un ty

Jail . We a ff

ir m. Appellant’s c ommunity

supervision included the f ollowing ter

ms and condi t i o n s , among others: that he “ [r] efr ain use, possession or c onsumption of marijuana or a ny other c ontr olled

su bs tanc e , a

nd us e of a lc oh ol” ; th a t he su

bmi t to pe ri od ic dru g te sti ng ; th a t he pa y mon thl y
c omm un ity su pervi sion f

e e s; a nd that he su c c e ssf

ull y c omp le te an o utp atie nt c he mic a l a bu se treatment prog ram. In its amended motion to revoke, the State alleg ed that appe llant had violated these four

terms and c onditions of his communi ty supervision. Specif

i ca lly , the State alleg ed (1) that, on or

about April 11, 2006, appe llant admitted t h at he had consumed mar ihuana; (2) that appellant ha d ref

used to submit to periodic testing f or the use or

consumption of controlled

su bs tanc e s o n July

14 , 2 00 6; ( 3) tha

t a pp e lla nt h a d f a ile d to pa

y his c omm

un ity su pe rv isi on fe e s in the amount of $40 for

the months of May

2005, Oc t o b er 2 0 0 5 , an d November 2005; and (4) that appellant ha d failed to suc cessf ully complete an outpatient che mical abuse treatment prog ram on or befor e Jul y 11, 2006. Appellant plea ded “not true ” to the State’s a lleg ations at the hea ring on the amende d motion to revoke. At the conclusion of t he evidence, the trial court orally announce d “true ” finding s on the first three alleg ations listed above and a “not t rue” finding on the fourth alleg ation listed a bove. Howeve r, in its judgme nt r evoking community supervision, the trial court made “true ” fi nd ing s o n a ll f

our o f t he a lle g a tio ns
. Appellant pre sents two issues for review. I n his first issue, he c ontends that the trial cour t abused its dis c r e ti o n

in r evoking his community

supervision. Appellant include s eig ht points of error in his first issue. I n his first three points of e rror , appellant attacks the trial c ourt’s findingthat he violated the ter

m and condition of his community supervision that he “ [r] efr ain use, possession or

c on sumpt ion

of mari jua na or any ot her con tr oll e d s ub sta

nc e , a nd us e of a lc oh ol. ” I n h is f

ourt h throug h eig hth points of error, a ppellant cha lleng es the suff iciency of the e vidence to support the trial court’s f in d in g s o f

“ tr u e ” o nth e o th e r

a ll e g e d v io lati o n s
. I nh is s e c o n d is s u e , a p p e ll an t c o n te nds that, in its j udg ment revokingcomm u n i t y s u pervision, the trial c ourt err ed in finding that alleg ed3

violation number four w as “true ” be ca u s e t h e t rial cour t made an or al finding at the hea ring that alleg ed violation number four was “ not true.” We revie w a trial court’s order revoking community supervision under an abuse of discretion standard. Ri c k

e ls v . S tate , 2 02 S.W. 3d 75 9, 76 3 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06 ); Car do na v . S tate , 665 S.W .2d 4 9 2 , 4 9 3 (T ex . Crim. App. 1984). At a re vocation hea ring , the State bea

rs the burde n of proving by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e that the de fenda nt violated the terms and c onditions of community

supervision. Cob b v . S

tate , 851 S.W .2d 871, 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Proof of any

on e vio latio n o f t

he terms an d c on dit ion s o f c omm un ity su pe rv isi on is s uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

a
revoc ation. Mc

Do na ld v . S

tate , 608 S.W. 2d

19 2, 20 0 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 80 ); Tay lor v . S tate , 604 S.W. 2d 17 5, 18 0 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 80 ); L e a c h v
. S ta te , 1 7 0 S. W. 3 d

6 6 9 , 6 7 2 ( T e x. App.—For

t Worth 2005, pet. ref’d)

. Appellant does not c halleng e the sufficie ncy of the e vidence that he used ma rihuana during the t erm of h is c o mm

u n it y s u p e r v is io n
. H o w e v e r , h e c o n te n d s in h is f ir s t t h r e e p o ints o f

e r r or (1) that the te rm and c ondition of his communit y supervision t o “[ r] ef

rain use, posse ssion or consumption of marijuana or any other c ontrolled substance, a nd use of a lcohol” is ambig uous and “fa iled to provide [him] with a clear ex pression of what was expected of him,” (2) that ther e wa s no evidenc e that his community supervision offic er clarifie d the ambiguity , and (3) that the direc tion to “ re fr a in u se ” wa s une nf or c e a ble a s wr itt e n. We dis a g re e wi th a pp e lla nt’ s c on te nti on

that “ re fr a in

us e ” is a mbi g uo us . D espite its g ra mmatic a l stru c tur e , th is t e rm and c on dit ion

of c omm un ity

s u p e r v i s i o nc l e ar l y

an d u n amb i g u o u s l y

r e qu i r e d a p p e l l an tn o tt o u s e , p o s s e s s , o r c on su me
mari hu ana , a

ny oth e r c on tr oll e d s ub sta

nc e s, or a lc oh ol. Appellant sig ned a statement, dated April 11, 2006, in which he a dmitted that he had used

mari hu ana

on Ap ri l 7, 20 06 . T he State int ro du c e d into e vid e nc e a

c op y of the state me nt. De ne ise Thibault, a community

supervision offic er, te stified that appellant admitted that he had used marihuana

on April 7, 2006. The e vidence was suff icient to support the trial court’ s finding that appellant violated the term and condition of his c ommunity supervision that he “[ r] ef ra i n use, possession or consumption of marijuana or any other c ontrolled substa n ce , and use of alcohol.” There fore , the trial court did not abuse its discr etion in revokingappellant’ s community supervision.4

B e c a us e pr oo f o f o ne vio latio n w a s su ff ic ie nt to su

pp or t the re vo c a tio n, we ov e rr

ule a pp e lla nt’ s f ir st issue and nee d not addre ss his second issue. We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

.

T E R RY M c C A LL

JUSTI CE

J anuar y 30, 2009 Do not publish. SeeT EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , an d

S t r an g e , J.