NO. 07-08-00158-CR 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT AMARILLO 

PANEL B 

MARCH 30, 2010 

KENDRICK DUJUAN REAGOR, APPELLANT 

v. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 FROM THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY; 

NO. 1011794D; HONORABLE WAYNE F. SALVANT, JUDGE 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Appellant Kendrick Dujuan Reagor appeals from the trial court=s judgment 

adjudicating him guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child, revoking his community 

supervision, and sentencing him to twenty years imprisonment in the Institutional 

Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. By his point of error, he contends 

the trial court abused its discretion because the State did not prove by a preponderance 

of the evidence that appellant was in violation of his community supervision. Finding no 

abuse of discretion, we affirm the trial court=s judgment. 
2 

Background 

In March 2006, appellant was charged by indictment with the offense of 

aggravated sexual assault of a child.1

 In February 2007, appellant plead guilty. The 

trial court entered an order deferring adjudication and placed appellant on community 

supervision for a term of ten years. Appellant=s deferred adjudication was conditioned 

on his compliance with specified terms and conditions. The State filed its Petition to 

Proceed to Adjudication in September 2007, alleging appellant failed to register as a 

sex offender,2

 failed to notify his supervision officer of a change in home address, and 

failed to attend and participate fully in and successfully complete required treatment. At 

the May 2008 hearing, appellant plead Anot true@ to each of the State=s allegations. The 

State presented the testimony of an Arlington police detective, appellant=s community 

supervision officer and other witnesses to show appellant violated the terms of his 

community supervision. Appellant testified on his own behalf. 

After hearing the evidence and argument by counsel, the trial court found 

appellant committed the new offense of failing to register as a sex offender on or about 

the 6th day of August 2007 and found that on or about the 6th day of April, 2007 

appellant did not reside at the residence reported and had never resided at the reported 

 1

 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. ' 22.021(2)(B) (Vernon 2003). 

2

 A person commits the offense of failure to comply with the requirements of the 

sex offender registration laws if the person is required to register and fails to comply 

with any requirement of the statute. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 62.102(a) 

(Vernon 2006). 
3 

address.3 The court adjudicated appellant guilty of sexual assault of a child, revoked his 

community supervision, and assessed the sentence noted. Appellant timely appealed. 

Analysis 

We review the trial court=s judgment revoking community supervision under an 

abuse of discretion standard. Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex.Crim.App. 

2006). We indulge all reasonable inferences in a light favorable to the trial court=s 

ruling, Jones v. State, 589 S.W.2d 419, 421 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979) (panel op), and 

sustain the order of revocation if the evidence substantiates a single violation. Jones v. 

State, 571 S.W.2d 191, 193-94 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978) (panel op.). Because a 

revocation hearing is an administrative hearing rather than a criminal trial, the State is 

required to prove a probation violation only by a preponderance of the evidence. Cobb 

v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993). The State thus meets its burden 

when the greater weight of the credible evidence creates a reasonable belief that the 

defendant violated a condition of his community supervision. Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 

764. If the State fails to meet its burden of proof, the trial court abuses its discretion in 

revoking the community supervision. Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493-94 

(Tex.Crim.App. 1984). 

 3

 The State is free to prove a violation occurred any time before the filing of the 

motion to revoke and during the probation period so long as the State pleads the 

violation occurred Aon or about@ a specified date and that it occurred while the defendant 

was on probation. Mauney v. State, 107 S.W.3d 693, 695 (Tex.App.BAustin 2003, no 

pet.), citing Labelle v. State, 720 S.W.2d 101, 104 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986). 
4 

After review of the record, we find we need address only one of the court’s 

findings to affirm its order. Appellant testified at the hearing that he reported the 

address of a particular apartment as his new registered address beginning in late May 

or early June 2007. The Arlington police detective and appellant’s probation officer both 

testified to their inability to locate appellant at the apartment on various occasions 

during May, June and July 2007.4 It appears undisputed appellant never provided 

required documentation of his residence at the apartment. Moreover, the apartment 

appellant claimed he reported as his residence was occupied by two females, only one 

of whom testified at the hearing.5

 She told the court she was the lessee of the 

apartment, and testified appellant never lived at the apartment, was never on the lease, 

never helped pay rent or bills at that address, did not have a key to the apartment and 

had never spent the night there. 

When the evidence is viewed in the proper light, we find it preponderates in favor 

of the court’s finding appellant violated sex offender address registration requirements. 

Because violation of a single condition of community supervision will sustain revocation, 

Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980) (panel op.); Leach v. State,

170 S.W.3d 669, 672 (Tex.App.BFort Worth 2005, pet. ref=d), the trial court did not 

abuse its discretion by revoking appellant’s community supervision. Accordingly, we 

overrule his point of error and affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

 4 The probation officer said she found appellant at the address on one attempt, 

on June 26. She also found appellant at the apartment on July 31 but learned he did 

not have a key to the apartment. 

5 Appellant testified the other roommate was his friend.
5 

Finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the judgment of the 

trial court 

 

 James T. Campbell 

 Justice 

Do not publish.