Opinion issued July 8, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-20-00745-CR

———————————

CHRISTOPHER TROY CROOKS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 179th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1507802

MEMORANDUM OPINION

After appellant, Christopher Troy Crooks, with an agreed punishment 

recommendation from the State, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of possession 

of a controlled substance: butalbital, weighing more than twenty-eight grams but 
2

less than 200 grams,

1

the trial court deferred adjudication of his guilt and placed him 

on community supervision for four years. The State, alleging numerous violations 

of the conditions of appellant’s community supervision, later moved to adjudicate 

his guilt. After a hearing, the trial court found an allegation true, found appellant 

guilty, and assessed his punishment at confinement for seven years. In two issues, 

appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that he 

violated a condition of his community supervision and the trial court’s judgment 

should be modified.

We modify the trial court’s judgment and affirm as modified.

Background

On February 21, 2017, appellant pleaded guilty to the felony offense of 

possession of a controlled substance: butalbital, weighing more than twenty-eight

grams but less than 200 grams. The trial court deferred adjudication of appellant’s 

guilt and placed him on community supervision, subject to certain conditions, 

including Condition 3:

Report to the [c]ommunity [s]upervision [o]fficer as directed for the 

remainder of the supervision term unless so ordered differently by the 

[c]ourt.

1 See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 481.104, 481.117(a), (c).
3

On August 4, 2020, the State moved to adjudicate appellant’s guilt,2alleging 

that appellant had violated numerous conditions of his community supervision, 

including “[f]ailing to report to the [c]ommunity [s]upervision [o]fficer,” “as 

directed on December 10, 2019[] [and] December 19, 2019[,] and [appellant] ha[d]

not reported to his [c]ommunity [s]upervision [o]fficer since.”

At the hearing on the State’s first amended motion to adjudicate guilt, 

appellant pleaded “false” to the above allegation in the State’s motion.

Former Harris County Community Supervision Officer N. Iyalla testified that 

she supervised appellant “[f]rom the beginning” of appellant’s community 

supervision period until the end of October 2019 when her job changed. According 

to Iyalla, as part of his community supervision, appellant was required to comply 

with certain conditions, which included reporting monthly, or as instructed, to his 

community supervision officer. Iyalla went over the conditions of his community 

supervision with appellant, and he signed the Conditions of Community Supervision 

form. While Iyalla supervised appellant, he reported to her as he was required to do. 

Iyalla last saw appellant at his October 2019 visit with her. According to Iyalla, 

appellant was familiar with the conditions of his community supervision and knew 

what “he had to do.”

2 The State filed its first amended motion to adjudicate guilt on August 4, 2020.
4

Harris County Community Supervision Officer A. Owens testified that she 

supervised appellant from November 2019 until March 2020 while appellant was on 

community supervision. During the time that Owens served as appellant’s 

community supervision officer, appellant failed to report as required in December 

2019, January 2020, and February 2020. Appellant was notified, in person, by Iyalla 

that he was supposed to report to his community supervision officer, Owens, on 

December 10, 2019. And Owens notified appellant by mail and email that he was 

required to report to her on December 19, 2019. Appellant did not show up for either 

required visit with Owens. When Owens tried to contact appellant, he did not 

respond to her. Owens also sent appellant, by mail and email, a notice to report to 

her on January 22, 2020. Appellant failed to report as directed, and Owens did not 

receive the notice back as undeliverable.

According to Owens, even though a motion to adjudicate appellant’s guilt was 

initially filed in January 2020, appellant was still required to report to his community 

supervision officer monthly. And Owens never told appellant that he no longer had 

to report to her.

After hearing the evidence, the trial court found that appellant had violated a 

condition of his community supervision by failing to report to his community 

supervision officer as directed. The trial court then found appellant guilty of the 

felony offense of possession of a controlled substance: butalbital, weighing more 
5

than twenty-eight grams but less than 200 grams, and assessed his punishment at 

confinement for seven years.

Adjudication of Guilt

In his first issue, appellant argues that the trial court erred in adjudicating his 

guilt because the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that he violated a 

condition of his community supervision.

Appellate review of an order adjudicating guilt is limited to determining 

whether the trial court abused its discretion. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 

42A.108; Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The trial 

court’s decision must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Rickels, 202 

S.W.3d at 763–64. The evidence meets this standard when the greater weight of the 

credible evidence creates a reasonable belief that a defendant has violated a 

condition of his community supervision. Id. We will conclude that the trial court 

did not abuse its discretion if the record shows proof by a preponderance of the 

evidence of any of the alleged violations of the conditions of community 

supervision. See Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 

1980).

We examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s order. 

Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981); Jones v. 

State, 787 S.W.2d 96, 97 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, pet. ref’d). As the 
6

sole trier of fact, the trial court determines the credibility of witnesses and the weight 

to be given to their testimony. See Garrett, 619 S.W.2d at 174; Jones, 787 S.W.2d 

at 97.

Proof of a single violation is sufficient to support revocation of community 

supervision. Moore, 605 S.W.2d at 926; Akbar v. State, 190 S.W.3d 119, 123 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.). Condition 3 of appellants’ Conditions of 

Community Supervision states:

Report to the [c]ommunity [s]upervision [o]fficer as directed for the 

remainder of the supervision term unless so ordered differently by the 

[c]ourt.

The State moved to adjudicate appellant’s guilt, alleging that appellant had 

“[f]ail[ed] to report to the [c]ommunity [s]upervision [o]fficer,” “as directed on 

December 10, 2019[] [and] December 19, 2019[,] and [appellant] ha[d] not reported 

to his [c]ommunity [s]upervision [o]fficer since.”

At the hearing on the State’s motion, Community Supervision Officer Iyalla 

testified that she supervised appellant from the beginning of his community 

supervision period until October 2019. As part of appellant’s community 

supervision, he was required to comply with certain conditions, including reporting 

monthly, or as instructed, to his community supervision officer. Iyalla went over the 

conditions of community supervision with appellant, and he signed the Conditions 

of Community Supervision form. Appellant was familiar with the conditions of his 
7

community supervision and knew what “he had to do.” Iyalla last saw appellant at 

his October 2019 visit with her.

Community Supervision Officer Owens testified that she supervised appellant 

from November 2019 until March 2020 while he was on community supervision. 

During that time, appellant failed to report to her, his community supervision officer, 

in December 2019, January 2020, and February 2020. Appellant was notified in 

person, by Iyalla, that he was supposed to report to his community supervision 

officer, Owens, on December 10, 2019. Appellant did not report to Owens on 

December 10, 2019. Owens notified appellant by mail and email that he was

required to report to her on December 19, 2019. Appellant did not report to Owens 

on December 19, 2019. When Owens tried to contact appellant, he did not respond.

Appellant asserts that the evidence shows that he reasonably believed that he 

was no longer required to report to his community supervision officer. But Owens 

testified that Iyalla, in October 2019, told appellant to report to his community 

supervision officer on December 10, 2019. And Owens notified appellant by mail 

and email that he was required to report to her on December 19, 2019. Owens never 

told appellant that he no longer had to report to her. According to Owens, appellant 

was required to still report to his community supervision officer even after a motion 

to adjudicate appellant’s guilt was filed in January 2020. As the sole trier of facts, 

the trial court determines the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to 
8

their testimony. See Garrett, 619 S.W.2d at 174; Taylor v. State, 604 S.W.2d 175, 

179 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980); Jones, 787 S.W.2d at 97. The trial court 

is entitled to believe all of a witness’s testimony. See Valtierra v. State, 310 S.W.3d 

442, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (trial court, as fact finder, is entitled to believe or 

disbelieve all or part of witness’s testimony).

Viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court’s order adjudicating guilt, 

the greater weight of the evidence supports a reasonable belief that appellant violated 

a condition of his community supervision. Thus, we hold that the trial court did not 

err in finding “true” that appellant violated the condition of his community 

supervision requiring appellant to “[r]eport to the [c]ommunity [s]upervision 

[o]fficer as directed for the remainder of the supervision term unless so ordered 

differently by the [c]ourt.” We also hold that the trial court did not err in adjudicating 

appellant’s guilt.

We overrule appellant’s first issue.

Modification of Judgment

In his second issue, appellant argues that the trial court’s judgment should be 

modified because appellant pleaded “not true” instead of “true” to the allegations in 

the State’s first amended motion to adjudicate guilt. (Internal quotations omitted.) 

The State concedes that the record shows that appellant pleaded “not true” to the 

allegations in its first amended motion to adjudicate guilt, and it argues that the trial 
9

court’s judgment should be modified because it incorrectly states that the trial court 

assessed appellant’s punishment at confinement for six years, when the trial court 

assessed appellant’s punishment at confinement for seven years. (Internal 

quotations omitted.)

We also note that the trial court’s written judgment does not accurately 

comport with the record because it states that the trial court found that appellant 

“violated the conditions of community supervision, as set out in the State’s Original 

Motion to Adjudicate Guilt as follows: Law Violation – Defendant did then and 

there violate terms and conditions of community supervision by failing to commit 

no offense against the laws of this State or any other state of the United States. 

Technical Violation – Defendant did then and there violate terms and conditions by 

failing to report to the community supervision officer as specified.” (Emphasis 

omitted.) 

“An appellate court has the power to correct and reform a trial court judgment 

‘to make the record speak the truth when it has the necessary data and information 

to do so, or make any appropriate order as the law and nature of the case may 

require.’” Nolan v. State, 39 S.W.3d 697, 698 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

2001, no pet.) (quoting Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

1991, pet ref’d)). Our authority to correct an incorrect judgment does not depend on 

a request by the parties. See Asberry, 813 S.W.2d at 529–30.
10

Here, the record reveals that appellant pleaded “false” or “not true” to the 

allegations in the State’s first amended motion to adjudicate guilt. And the trial 

court, in its oral pronouncement in open court, assessed appellant’s punishment at 

confinement for seven years. See Donovan v. State, 232 S.W.3d 192, 197 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (when oral pronouncement of sentence in 

open court conflicts with written judgment, oral pronouncement controls and 

solution is to modify written judgment to conform to sentence that was orally 

pronounced in open court); see also Thompson v. State, 108 S.W.3d 287, 290 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2003). The record also reveals that the trial court found that appellant 

violated the single condition of “[f]ailing to report to the [c]ommunity [s]upervision 

[o]fficer” as alleged in the State’s first amended motion to adjudicate guilt. See 

Whitehead v. State, No. 01-16-00168-CR, 2017 WL 3429954, at *5 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 10, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication) (concluding reference to State’s “Original Motion to Adjudicate Guilt” 

was clerical error and modifying judgment (internal quotations and emphasis 

omitted)); Jackson v. State, Nos. 05-14-00274-CR, 05-4-00275-CR, 2015 WL 

3797806, at *6–7 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 17, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication).

We modify the trial court’s judgment to state “NOT TRUE” for appellant’s 

“Plea to Motion to Adjudicate” and “7 YEARS” for appellant’s “Punishment.” And 
11

we modify the second page of the trial court’s judgment to state: “(5) While on 

deferred adjudication community supervision, Defendant violated the conditions of 

community supervision as set out in the State’s First Amended Motion to Adjudicate 

Guilt as follows: Technical Violation – Defendant did then and there violate terms 

and conditions of community supervision by failing to report to the community 

supervision officer as specified.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b).

We sustain appellant’s second issue.

Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified.

Julie Countiss

Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Landau and Countiss.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).