SeeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 1 

## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 07- 017- CR R OY S T ANL E Y S P I NDO R AP P E L L ANT V . STA TE T HE S T AT E OFT E XAS

----- ----- --

FR O M THE 355TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F HO O D CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I . I nt r oduc t i on I n t w o poi nt s, A ppe l l antRoy St anl ey S p i n d o r ap pea l s hi s se nt enc e o f e i g h t ye a rs’ co n fi n e m e n t, co n tes t in g the rev o c a ti o n o f his co m m u n i ty s u p e rv i s i o n o n a D ri v i n g W h i l e In to x i c a te d (D W I)- S u b s e q u e n t O ffe n s e c a s e . W e a f f i r m.2 I I . Fa ct ualan d Proce duralBac kground A s partofa D W I pl ea ag r ee m en t e n te re d i nt o i n M ar ch 199 9, Spi ndor w as pl aced on t en year s’ com m uni t y s u p e rv isi on. The t r i al courtor der ed S p i n d o rt o c o mp l ywi t h t h ef o l l o wi n g c o n d i t i o n s : c o mm i tn o o f f e n s ea gai nst f eder al or st at e l aw s, abst ai n f r om t he use ofal coho l , and dr i ve onl y vehi cl es e q u i p p e d w i th a n i g n i ti o n i n te rl o c kd e v i c e . I n D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 5 , th eS ta te fi l e d a m o ti o n to re v o k eS p i n d o r’s com m uni t y su pervi si on, al l egi ng t hat Spi ndor had vi ol at ed t he t er m s a nd con di t i onsofhi s c o m m uni t y s upe rvi si on. Spec i f i ca l l y, t he St at e l i st ed t he f ol l ow i ng vi ol at i ons r esul t i ng f r om a t r af f i c st op: f ai l ur e t o abst ai n f r om t he use ofal coho l , D W I , and f ai l ur e t o dr i ve a vehi cl e equi pped w i t h an i gni t i on i nt er l ock devi ce. A t t he hear i ng, of f i cer s t hatw er e pr esentatt he t r af f i c st op t est i f i ed th a t S p i n d o r’sv e h i c l ed i d n o t h a v ea n i g n i ti o n i n te rl o c kd e v i c e . T h etri a l c o u rt fo u n d tha t S p i n d o rh a d v i o l a ted the term s a n d co n d i ti o n s o f his co m m u n i ty su p e rvi sion b yd ri n k i n g alco h o l , D W I , a n d d ri v i n g a v e h i c l en o t eq u i p p e d w i th a n ig n it io n in t e r lo c kd e v ic e . C o n s e q u e n t ly , t h et r ia l c o u rtre v o k e d h is c o m m u n it ys u p e rv is io n a n d s e n t e n c e d h im t o e ig h ty e a r s ’ c o n f in e m e n t . T h is a p p e a l fo l l o w e d .3 I I I . Revo ca t i on ofCom m unity Supe rvi si on A . St andar d ofRev i ew W e r evi ew an or derr evo ki ng c om m uni t y s upe rvi si on un der an abu seof d i s c re ti o n s ta n d a rd . Ca rdo n av. S tate , 665 S . W . 2d 492 , 493 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1 9 8 4 ); Ja ckso nv. S tate , 6 4 5 S .W .2 d 3 0 3 , 3 0 5 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 8 3 ). In a r evo ca t i on pr oce edi ng, t he St at e m us t pr oveby a p r epo nde r anc e o ft he e v i d e n c etha t t h ed e fen d a n t vi o l a ted the t e rm s a n d co n d i ti o n s o f co m m u n i ty s u p e r v i s i o n . Co b bv. S tate , 851 S . W . 2d 871, 873 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 19 9 3 ). The t r i alco urti s the s ol e j udgeoft he cr edi bi l i t y oft he w i t nes se s and t he w ei ghtt o begi ven t hei rt es t i m ony, an d w e rev i ew t he evi den cei n t he l i ght m o s t fa v o ra b l e to th e tri a l c o u rt’s ru l i n g . Cardona , 6 6 5 S .W .2 d a t 4 9 3 ; Ga rre tt v. S tate , 6 1 9 S .W .2 d 1 7 2 , 1 7 4(T e x . C ri m . A p p . [P a n e l O p .] 1 9 8 1 ); A l l br i ght v. S tate , 13 S. W . 3d 817 , 819 ( Tex. A pp. — Fort W ort h 200 0, pet . r ef ’ d) . Pr oof by a pr epo nde r anc e of t he evi den ceofan y one of t he al l ege d vi ol at i onsoft he c o n d i ti o n so f c o m m u n i tys u p e rv i s i o n i ss u fficie n t to s u p p o rt a re v o c a ti o n o rd e r. Moo re v. S tate , 6 0 5 S .W .2 d 9 2 4 , 9 2 6 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . [P a n e l O p .] 1 9 8 0 ); San ch ez v. S tate , 6 0 3 S .W .2 d 8 6 9 , 8 7 1 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . [P a n e l O p .] 1 9 8 0 ). B . A n a ly s is4

I n hi s f i r stpoi nt , Spi ndorco m pl ai nst hatt he t r i al cou rt er r ed by a dm i tt i ng i nt o evi dence st at em ent s m ade by hi m to hi s com m uni t y super vi si on off i cer w h i l ei n c u sto d y reg a rding S p i n d o r’ s a l c o h o l c o n su m p ti o n . I n h i s s e c o n d p o i n t, S pi ndo rar gues t hatt he t r i al courtabused i t s di scr et i on bydenyi ng hi s or al re q u e s t fo ra c o n ti n u a n c eto s e c u ree x p e rt te s ti m o n yre g a rd i n g S p i n d o r’s i n to x i c a ti o n l e v e l . B e c a u s ep ro o f o f o n l yo n ev i o l a ti o n i ss u fficie n t to s u p p o rt a re v o c a t io n o r d e ra n d b e c a u s e n e it h e ro f S p in d o r ’s p o in t sc h a lle n g e s , d ir e c t ly ori ndi r ect l y, t he t r i al court ’ s f i ndi ng w i t h r egar d t o t he i gni t i on i nt er l ock devi ce v i o l a ti o n , w eo v e rr u l eb o th p o i n ts a n d affi rm the tr i a l co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t.

B OBM CC OY J U S T I C E PA N EL: LI V I N G STO N , D A U PH I N O T, an d M C C O Y, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Oct ob e r2, 2008