NO. 07-02-0433 -CR IN THE COU RT OF APP EALS FOR THE SEVENT H DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMA RILLO PANE L C SEPTE MBE R 24, 2003

______________________________ CLIFFORD S. VALENTINE, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE COUNT Y COURT AT LAW NO. ONE OF L UBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 99-463,420; HON ORABLERUSTY LA DD, JUDG E

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and REAVIS, JJ.
MEM ORAN DUM OP INI ON Upon hearing evidence on the State’s mo tion to r evoke tha t appel lant Cli fford S. Valentine violat ed the condi tions of community su perv ision im pos ed f or a n as sau lt conviction, the trial court revoked com munity supervision and assessed punishm ent at 270 days confinemen t. Presenting tw o issues, appellant urges abuse of discretion by the t rial2

court in revoking his comm unity supervision for (1) fail ing to repo rt because the evi dence establis hed he a tte m pte d tocom ply with h is obligation, and (2) faili ng to pay for, attend, and com plete a domes tic violence course and anger counseling b ecaus e the eviden ce established he was unable to afford the course s and because no evidence exists he was ever directed to attend anger counseling. Based upon the ra ti on al e e xpr es se d h er ei n, we affi rm. On January 25, 2000, appellant was convicted of assault and placed on com munity supervision for 24 months. On January 28, he w as given perm ission to reside in Ohio and wasinstructed to report by telephone and m ail until Ohio accepted him for com munity supervision. On July 14, appellant contacted thecom m unit y s upe rvis ion o ffice in Lubbock to not ify the m tha t Oh io did not accept his supervision because of a new c harge of

driving under the influence. According to his com munity s upervision officer’s testimon y, appellant wasinst ruc

ted to cont inuerep ort ing b y m ail. His ma il-in reports were sporadic and he was behind in required payments. In August 2001, app ellant’s comm unity supervision officer informed himthat a report w ould be subm itted to m ove for revocation.
W hen reviewing an order revoking com munity supervision, the so le question before thisCou rt iswhether th e trial court abused its discretion. Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex.Cr.A pp. 1984); Jackson v. State, 645 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex.Cr.App. 1983). The State m ust prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the probationer violated a condition of com munity s upervision as alleged in the mo tion to revoke. Cobb v. S tate,3

851 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex.Cr.A pp. 1993). If the S tate fails to m eet its burden of proof, the trial court abuses its discretion in revoking comm unity supervision. Cardona , 665 S.W.2d at494. In determ ining the sufficiency of the evidence to sus tain a revocation, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. Garrett v. State, 619 S .W .2d 172, 174 (Tex.C r.App. 1981). In arevocation hearing, the trial court is the sole judge of the credibili ty of the w itnesses and t he weight to be given to their testi mony. Chafer v. State , 500 S .W.2d 139, 141 (Te x.C r.App. 1973). The court is not required to believe an accused’s defense. Id. Wh e n more t han one violation of the conditions of com munity supervision is found b y th e trial court, the revocation order shall be affirmed if one sufficient ground supports the order. Moore v. S tate, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex.Cr.A pp. 1980); Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191, 193 (Tex.Cr.App. 1 978); McCollum v. State, 78 4 S.W.2d 702, 70 4-05 (Tex .App. --Houston [14t h Dist.] 1990, p et. ref 'd). Appellant returned to Tex as in Se ptem ber 200 1. Karla Davi s, appell ant’s com munity

sup erv ision off

icer , te stif

ie d tha t when app ellant was placed on com munity supervision, the conditions were review ed with him , and written and verba l in structions werealso given. Evidence at the revo cation hearing established he failed to rep ort by m ail as instructed for the m onths of Septem ber, October, Novem ber, and Decem ber 2000, and January, Ma rch , M ay, and July 200 1. E vide nceof o the r vio lation s was also presented. On cross-exa mination, appellant testified he wasfam iliar with the conditions of comm unity supervision. Howe ver, his defense for failing to repo rtby m ail on numerous occasions was4

lack of t he nece ssary

forms. He claimed he left m essages on the answering m achine of the com munity

supervision office and that m onths would pass bef ore he would receive a response. Da vis testified that m essages were checked often, bu t that it waspossible to m iss a m ess age if t he voicem ailbox bec am e fu ll. The trial court was entitled to accept or reject an y part of either witness’s testimony. See Chafer

, 500 S.W.2d at 141. Betw een Septem ber 2000 and January 2001, a ppellant failed to report for five consecutive m onths, m aking his ex planati on for fail ing to do so suspect. Viewing the evidence in the light m ost favorable to t he trial co ur t’s ru li ng , we cannotconclude an ab use of discretion occurred. Issue oneis overruled. Because the violation that appellant failed to report by m ail as directed is a sufficient ground to support the revocation order, we need not addre ss appell ant’s second issue by which he a lleges abuse of d isc ret io n in f indin g hefaile d topay for , at ten d, a nd com plete th e do m est ic violence course and anger counseling. Moore , 605 S.W.2d at 926. Accordingly, the j udgme nt of the trial court is affirmed. Don H. Rea vis Justice Do not publish.