Opinion filed August 15, 2013

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-11-00268-CR

__________

TRINITY LYNN ROBERTS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 35th District Court

Brown County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR19796 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision. A jury 

convicted Appellant, Trinity Lynn Roberts, of sexual assault. The same jury

assessed her punishment at confinement for four years but recommended that the 

trial court place her on community supervision. In accordance with the jury’s 

recommendation, the trial court suspended the imposition of the sentence as to 

confinement and placed Appellant on community supervision for a term of four 
2

years. The State filed a motion to revoke. Following a hearing, the trial court 

revoked Appellant’s community supervision and assessed her punishment at 

confinement for four years. In a single appellate issue, Appellant contends that the 

trial court abused its discretion by revoking her community supervision. We 

affirm.

The State alleged in its motion to revoke that Appellant had committed five 

violations of the terms of her community supervision. Specifically, the State 

moved to revoke on the following grounds: (1) that Appellant failed to comply 

with sex offender registration requirements; (2) that Appellant changed her 

residence without the permission of her community supervision officer; (3) that 

Appellant traveled out of the State of Texas without the permission of her 

community supervision officer; (4) that Appellant went to the Sherwood 

swimming pool, a place where children congregate; and (5) that Appellant went to 

the Balmorhea State Park swimming pool, a place where children congregate. The 

trial court conducted a hearing on the State’s motion. Appellant pleaded “not true” 

to the allegations in the State’s motion. After hearing evidence, the trial court 

found the third allegation to be not true and found the first, second, fourth, and

fifth allegations to be true.

We review a 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). A single, sufficient ground for revocation will support a trial court’s 

judgment revoking community supervision. Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191, 193–

94 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the 

evidence to support the trial court’s true findings on the first and second 

allegations. She contends that, because the evidence was insufficient to support 

those findings, the revocation of her community supervision violated her rights to 

due process of law and due course of law. However, Appellant does not challenge 
3

the trial court’s findings as to the fourth and fifth allegations. A trial court’s order 

revoking community supervision will be affirmed if an appellant does not 

challenge all of the grounds upon which the trial court revoked community 

supervision. Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App, 1980). The 

revocation of Appellant’s community supervision is justified on the grounds not 

challenged on appeal. O’Neal v. State, 623 S.W.2d 660, 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1981); Moore, 605 S.W.2d at 926. Therefore, the revocation did not violate 

Appellant’s due process of law and due course of law rights, and the trial court did 

not abuse its discretion by revoking Appellant’s community supervision.

We note that the State presented evidence to support the first and second 

allegations that Appellant failed to comply with sex offender registration 

requirements and that Appellant moved without the permission of her community 

supervision officer. Appellant presented conflicting evidence on these allegations. 

At a revocation hearing, the trial court is the sole judge of the credibility of the 

witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. Antwine v. State, 268 S.W.3d 

634, 636 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2008, pet. ref’d). Based on the evidence, the trial 

court could have reasonably concluded that Appellant committed the violations 

alleged in the State’s first and second allegations. Appellant’s sole issue on appeal 

is overruled.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment revoking community supervision.

PER CURIAM

August 15, 2013

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

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Willson, J.