Opinion filed February 14, 2013

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-11-00038-CR

__________

JENNIFER KAY ALEXANDER, Appellant 

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 39th 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 adjudicating her guilty of the offense 

of possession of a controlled substance. In September 2009, Appellant entered a plea of guilty.

The trial court deferred adjudication of Appellant’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 motion 

to revoke community supervision and adjudicate guilt, alleging that Appellant 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 that Appellant had violated three 
2

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 confinement for a term of twenty-four months and a fine of $1,000. We affirm.

Background Facts

The trial court found that Appellant violated Conditions 2, 10, and 12 of the terms and 

conditions of her community supervision. In pertinent part, the conditions required that 

Appellant 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 Appellant’s vehicle 

in Abilene. Pursuant to a consent search of her vehicle, the officers 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, Appellant argues that the trial court abused its 

discretion in revoking her deferred adjudication community supervision. Appellant contends the 

State failed to meet its burden of proof.

Standard of Review

The burden is on the State to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the 

defendant committed a violation of the conditions of community supervision. Cobb v. State, 851 

S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). We review the trial court’s order, in which it revokes 

community supervision, under an abuse 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 

favorable 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. 

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. 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 

763–64.
3

Revocation of Community Supervision & Adjudication of Guilt

Appellant’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. She further argues

that, contrary to her testimony at trial, she did not know she needed written permission to leave 

Haskell County.

Steven Cody Ott was Appellant’s adult probation officer. He testified that he explained 

the terms and conditions of community supervision to Appellant. Ott further testified that 

Appellant did not have written permission to leave Haskell County. 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—registered to Timothy Alexander, Appellant’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 

vehicle, Appellant 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 Appellant’s cell phone.

At trial, Appellant testified she understood that, as a condition of her community 

supervision, she needed permission to leave Haskell County. Appellant admitted that she never 

got permission on October 3, 2010, to go into Taylor County. Further, Appellant admitted to 

going to Abilene the week prior to this incident and to Stamford, in Jones County, the morning 

of the incident—all without the written permission required under the terms of her community 

supervision.

The record contains evidence supporting the trial court’s determination that Appellant 

violated at least one of the terms 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, 193–94 (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. Appellant’s 

sole issue on appeal 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Willson, J.