Opinion filed February 14, 201 3



## In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ No. 11

- 11

- 00038

- CR

__________ JENNIFER KAY ALEXANDER , Appellant

V.

S TATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 39 th District Court

Haskell County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No . 6370

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Jennifer Kay Alexander appeals from a judgment adjudic ating her guilty of the offense of possession of a controlled substance

. In September 2009
, A ppellant entered a plea of guilty

. T he trial court deferred adjudication of A ppellant’s guilt
, placed her on community supervision
for a term of two years , and assessed a $1,000 fine

. In December 2010, the State filed a m otion

to r evoke c ommunity s upervision and a djudicate g uilt
, alleging th at A ppellant violated six conditions of her community supervision. Appellant pleaded not true to the alleged violations. After a hearing on the State’s motion , the trial court found th at A ppellant had violated three2 conditions of her community supervision by committing the offense of possession of a controlled substance in Taylor County, adjudicated her guilty of the original offense, and assessed punishment at conf inement for a term of twenty

- four months and a fine of $1,000

. We affirm. Background Facts
The trial court found that A ppellant violated Conditions 2, 10, and 12 of the terms and conditions of her community supervision. In pertinent part, the conditions require d that
A ppell ant commit no new offense, remain in Haskell County unless given written consent to leave, and refrain from the possession, use, sale, or control of any controlled substance. On October 3, 2010, officers of the Taylor County Sheriff’s Department stopped A ppellant’s vehicle
in Abilene. Pursuant to a consent search of her vehicle, the offi cers discovered approximately
six grams of methamphetamine and six grams of alprazolam between the center console and the passenger seat. In her sole issue on appeal, A ppellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking her deferred adjudication community supervision. A ppellant contends the State failed to meet its burden of proof. Standard of Review The burden is on the State to show, by a preponder ance of the evidence, that the defendant committed a violation of the conditions of community supervision. Cobb v. State , 85 1 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). We review the trial court’s order, in which it revokes community supervision, under an a buse of discretion standard. Rickels v. State , 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The trial court is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony, and the evidence is reviewed in the light most
fa vorable to the trial court’s ruling. Garrett v. State , 619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). The trial court abuses its discretion if it revokes community supervision when the State has failed to meet its burden of proof. Hart v. State , 264 S.W.3d 364, 366 (Tex. App.

— Eastland 2008, pet. ref’d). Proof by a preponderance of the evidence of any one of the alleged violations
of the terms and conditions of community supervision is sufficient to support a revocation order.
T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN . art . 42.12, § § 5(b), 21(b) (West Supp. 2012); Moore v. State , 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). If the greater weight of the credible evidence creates a reasonable belief that a defendant violated a condition of her community supervision, the trial court does not abuse its discretion if it revokes community supervision. Rickels , 202 S.W.3d at
763

– 6 4.3 Revocation of Community Supervision & Adjudication of Guilt
A ppellant’s specific argument is that the State failed to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that she was in control of the methamphetamine found in her car

. S he further argues that, contrary to her testimony at trial, she did not know she needed written perm ission to leave
Haskell County.
Steven Cody Ott was A ppellant’s adult probation officer. He testified that he explained the terms and conditions of community supervision to A ppellant. Ott further testified that
A ppellant did not have written permission to leave Haskell Count y. Shay Bailey, a narcotics agent for the Taylor County Sheriff’s Department, testified that he was investigating a report of individuals dealing methamphetamine out of Abilene

- area hotels. Officer Bailey testified that he
observed a Ford Expedition

— regi stered to Timothy Alexander, A ppellant’s husband

— driving toward Abilene from Jones County. He observed two traffic violations and followed the vehicle to the Country Hearth Inn. Appellant was driving the Ford Expedition. After police stopped the
vehicl e , A ppellant consented to a search of the car. Officer Bailey testified that he discovered approximately six grams each of substances later identified as methamphetamine and alprazolam alongside A ppellant’s cell phone. At trial, A ppellant testified she understood that, as a condition of her community supervision, she needed permission to leave Haskell County. A ppellant admitted that she never got permission on October 3, 2010, to go into Taylor County. Further, A ppellant admitted to going to Abilene th e week prior to this incident and to Stamford , in Jones County, the morning
of the incident

— all without the written permission required under the term s of her community supervision. The record contains evidence supporting the trial court’s determination t hat A ppellant
violated at least one of the term s and conditions of her community supervision , leaving Haskell County without written consent

. Proof of one violation is sufficient to support a revocation.
McDonald v. State , 608 S.W.2d 192, 200 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) ; Jones v. State , 571 S.W.2d 191, 193

– 9 4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978)

. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the alleged violation to be true and proceeding with an adjudication of guilt. A ppellant’s
sol e issue on appea l is overruled.4 This Court’s Ruling The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

MIKE WILLSON
JUSTICE

February 14, 2013 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Willson
, J.