### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 08
- 00228
- CR
ADAM ARISTA , Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 13th District Court Navarro County, Texas Trial Court No. 31,206
- CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The trial court revoked Adam Arista’ s community supervision for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced him to twelve years in prison. In two issues, Arista contends that the trial court abused its discretion by finding by a preponderance of the evidence that he violated the t erms of community supervision where he pleaded “not true” to the State’s allegations and presented defenses to the allegations . We affirm.Arista v. State Page 2

A trial court’s revocation order is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Rickels v.
State , 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Te x. Crim. App. 2006). “In determining questions regarding sufficiency of the evidence in probation revocation cases, the burden of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at 763

- 64. This burden is met where the greater weight of the credible ev idence creates a reasonable belief that the defendant has violated a condition of his probation. See i d

. In a revocation hearing, the trial court is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to give their testimony. See Garrett v . State , 619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); see also
Antwine v. State , 268 S.W.3d 634, 636 (Tex. App.

— Eastland 2008, pet. ref’d )

. The motion to revoke alleged that Arista failed to : (1) report to his community supervision officer every thirty days ; (2) report address changes to his community supervision officer ; (3) pay community supervision fees ; and (4) pay court costs

. At the revocation hearing, the trial court entered a plea of “not true” on Arista’s behalf. Community supervision officer Debra Roberts testified that Arista was transferred to the Tarrant County supervision office because he resided in Fort Worth. Tarrant County supervision officer Pamela Young informed Roberts that Arista failed to report in June, July, and August 2007. Attemp ts to contact Arista at his Fort Worth residence were futile. Young left a card at Arista’s door. Arista contacted Young in June and scheduled an appointment, but failed to report. Roberts testified that Arista
ha s paid no fees or court costs.
Arista te stified that he failed to report once, learned that his girlfriend was pregnant, and quit reporting because he expected to be placed in jail for failing toArista v. State Page 3

report. He turned himself in after the birth. He denied contacting his supervision officer in June or being in contact with anyone from the supervision office. He further testified that no one came to his home, left a card at his home, or attempted to contact him. Although employed, Arista claimed that he was unable to make payments
because he was as sisting his sister and supporting his girlfriend financially. He denied moving from the Fort Worth address that he had give n to the supervision office.
Arista testified that he did not understand the conditions of community supervision. He claimed that h e was only informed of the condition regarding anger management classes and was n ot told to perform community service. He stopped attending classes when he quit reporting. He also had no transportation. He testified
that he now has a job that would enab le him to make payments and he has a car for transportation . T he trial court found all but the address change allegation to be ”true.” As to the first of the State’s allegations, Arista admitted failing to report to his supervision officer. He offered no explanation for his failure to report, but admitted that he “blew [the conditions] off” and had no excuse. His admission alone is sufficient to support revocation. See Espinoza v. State , 486 S.W.2d 315, 317 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972)

. However, Arista contends that he raised defenses to the State’s allegations. Althoug h
he does not identify the specific defenses on which he relies , his testimony at the revocation hearing raised issues as to his lack of transportation , his understanding of
the conditions , and due diligence on the part of community supervision officers

. F irst, the record does not establish that Arista had no available means of transportation. He testified that his sister drove him to work. See Black v. State , No. 14

-Arista v. State Page 4

04

- 00471

- CR, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 5849, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] July 28,
20 05, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (Black’s “testimony that he was unable to comply with conditions does not greatly outweigh the evidence in the record that transportation was, in fact, available to him .”). Second, the record contains evidence controverting Arista’s claims that the conditions were not explained to him. He admitted that the conditions were explained by his attorney, the judge, and a supervision officer. He also admitted testifying that he
understood the conditions. Both Robert s and supervision officer Scott Heaton
confirmed that the conditi ons were reviewed with Arista. Arista signed a statement acknowledging that the conditions were read and explained to h im and that he
understood them. See Jones v. State , 176 S.W.3d 47, 51 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (rejecting argument that conditions were not explained , as Jones received a written copy of the conditions and acknowledged receiving them ). Third, Arista denied being contacted by community supervision officer s. See
T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 42.12 § 24 (Vernon Supp. 2008). 1 Yet, the trial court heard contrary testimony from Roberts. The record also contains two letters from

1 The due diligence defense states: For the purposes of a hearing under Section 5(b) or 21(b), it is an affirmative defense to revocation for an alleged failure to report to a supervision officer as directed or to remain within a specified place that a supervision officer, peace officer, or other officer with the power of arrest under a warrant issued by a judge for that alleged v iolation failed to contact or attempt to contact the defen dant in person at the defendant’ s last known residence address or last known employment address, as reflected in the files of the department serving the county in which the order of community superv ision was entered.
T EX

. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC

. A NN
. art. 42.12 § 24 (Vernon Supp. 2008 ).Arista v. State Page 5

Young, mailed to Arista’s Fort Worth address, advising Arista of his failure to report and requesting that he contact her. See Antwine , 268 S.W.3d at 637 (When Antwine quit reporting, his supervision officer attempted to contact him at his last known address)

. The only other defense raised addresses Arista’s inability to pay the f ees and costs imposed by the community supervision order. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 42.12 §21(c) (Vernon Supp. 2008)

. 2 However, i n order to obtain a reversal, Arista “must successfully challenge each finding on which the revocation is based.” Harris v.
State , 160 S.W.3d 621, 626 (Tex. App.

— Waco 200 5, pet. dism’d) (emphasis added).
P roof of “any one of the alleged violations of the conditions of community supervision is
sufficien t to support a revocation order.” Leach v. State , 170 S.W.3d 669, 672 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2005, pet. ref’d)

. Because the evidence is sufficient to support revocation of Arista’s community supervision for failure to report, we need not address the inability to pay defense. Accordingly, we overrule Arista’s sole issue and affirm t he judgment.

FELIPE REYNA Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Reyna , and Justice Davis Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed March 4, 2009 Do not publish [CR25]

2 When the State alleges that the defendant violated the conditions of community supervision by failing to pay community supervision fees or court costs, it must “prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was able to pay and did not pay as ordered by the judge.” T EX

. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC

. A NN
. art. 42.12 §21(c) (Vernon Supp. 2008) (emphasis added).