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., a nd CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Kendrick Du juan Reagor appeals fr om the trial court = s judgment adjudicating him guilty of aggravated sexual a ssault of a child, revoking his community supervision, and sentencing him to twenty y ears imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. By hi s point of error, he contends the trial court abused its discr etion because the Stat e did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a ppellant was in violation of his co mmunity 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, appella nt 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 condi tions. The State filed its Petition to Proceed to Adjudication in September 2007, a lleging appellant failed to register as a sex offender, 2 failed to notify his supervision office r of a change in home address, and failed to attend and participate fully in and successfully comple te required treatment. At the May 2008 heari ng, appellant plead A not true @ to each of the State = s allegations. The State presented the test imony of an Arlington po lice detective, appellant = s community supervision officer and other witnesses to show appellant violat ed 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 o ffender on or about the 6 th day of August 2007 and f ound that on or about the 6 th day of April, 2007 appellant did not reside at the residence r eported 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 r egister 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 appell ant guilty of sexual assault of a child, revoked his community supervision, and assessed the sent ence noted. Appellant timely appealed.
Analysis

We review the trial court = s judgment revoking communi ty 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 evi dence 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 administr ative hearing rather than a crim inal 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.Cri m.App. 1993). The State thus meets its burden when the greater weight of the credible evidence create s 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 befor e the filing of the motion to revoke and during the probation period so long as the State pleads the violation occurred A on 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.

B Austin 2003, no pet.), citing Labelle v. State, 720 S.W.2d 101, 104 (T ex.Crim.App. 1986).4 After review of the reco rd, we find we need address only one of the court’s findings to affirm its order. Appellant testified at t he hearing that he reported the address of a particular apartment as his new registered addr ess beginning in late May or early June 2007. The Arlin gton police detective and appell ant’s probation officer both testified to their inability to locate appe llant 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. Mor eover, 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 addre ss registration requirements. Because violation of a single condition of community supervision wil l 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.

B Fort Worth 2005, pet. ref = d), the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking appellant’s co mmunity supervision. Accordingly, we overrule his point of error and af firm the trial court’s judgment.

4 The probation officer said she found appe llant at the address on one attempt, on June 26. She also found appellant at t he 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 di scretion, we affirm the judgment of the trial court

James T. Campbell Justice

Do not publish.