### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00797- CR

Ra nfer i He r nande z , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 403RD JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 30302 93, H ONO RAB LE BRENDA KENNEDY , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Ap pe lla nt R anf e ri He rn and e z wa s pla ced on c omm un ity su pe rv isi on fo llo wi nghis conviction for r obbery
. See Tex. P en. Code Ann. § 29.02 ( West 2003). After f inding that a

ppellant violated the ter

ms and conditions of his supervision by possessing c ocaine an d fi rea rms, the trial court revoke d supervision and imposed a ten- y ear sentenc e. Appe llant contends that the e vidence is insufficient to support the decision to r evoke. We will overrule the point of e rror and af firm the court’s or der. The State ha s the burden of proving a violation of the ter ms an d conditions of community supervision by a prepondera nce of the evidenc e. Cob b v . S tat e , 851 S.W .2d 871, 874 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 1993 ). I t me e ts this burd e n if the g re a te r w e ig ht o f c re dib le e vid e nc e c re a te s a
rea sonable be lief that a co n d i t ion of supervision was violate d as alleg ed. J e nk ins v . S tat e , 740Appe lla nt’ s st a te d p oin t of

e rr or is t hat th e e vid e nc e is l e g a lly and fa c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o 1 sustain the revoc ation order
. Every court of a ppeals that ha s considere d the issue has c oncluded that fac tual sufficie ncy revie w i s inapplicable to probation revoc ations. Se e Da v ila v . S tat e , 173 S.W .3d 19 5, 19 8 (T e x. Ap p. —Co rp us Chr ist i 20 05 , n o p e t.) (c oll e c tin g c a se s) . In th e bo dy of his argume nt, appellant c ites only

the established standa

rd of r eview disc ussed above
. 2 S.W. 2d 43 5, 43 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 83 ). Th e vio la tio n o f a sin g le c on dit ion

is s uf fi c ie nt t o 1 support revoc ation. Mo or e v . S tat e , 605 S.W .2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Our re view of
a re vocation orde r is limit ed to deter mining whe ther the tria l court abuse d its discr etion. Cardona

v . S tat e , 665 S.W .2d 492, 495 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).

Austin police offic er John Noetzel te s t i fi ed at the r evocation hearingthat he wa s
a pp ro a c he d b y

an in fo rm e r, ide nti fi e d a s A nto nio Oj od e a g ua , who tol d h im that a pp e lla nt a nd his br oth e r Eu g e nio He rn and e z we re de a lin g na rc oti c s at th e ir

re sid e nc e and

we re a lso pla

nn inga “ ho me invasion.” Noe tzel and other off icer s beg an surve illance at the He r n a n d e z r e s id e n c e , wh e r e appe llant and his brother

lived with their pare nts and sister. The He rnande z house was built on a steep hill, with the g ara g e below the main living
are a. The g ara g e had be en converted into a f amily room. The only

acc ess betwe en this family room and the uppe r living a

rea was by means of a

n outsid e s t airwa

y visible from the stree t. Noetzel testified that he a

nd other off

icer s saw appellant and his brother g oing to a nd from the f

amily room
on a re g ula r b a sis . T he y

ne ve r s aw o the r m e mbe rs of th e fa mil y us e that r oo m. T he of

fi c e rs a lso witnessed a ste ady

stream of visitors to t he fa

mily room. Noetzel testified t hat t hese c omings a nd go i n gs we re , i nh i s ex p er i en ce , t y p i ca l o f d ru g d ea l i n g.Eug enio Her nandez pleade d g uilty

in fede ral court to possessing the drug s and fire arms. Of 2 course , drug s may be jointly possessed by

more than one person. Cud e v . S tat e , 716 S.W .2d 46, 47 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). 3

Noetzel testified that Ojodea g u a w a s in s id e th e H e r

n a n d e z h o u s e on sever al occ asions and re ported see ing na

rcotics. Ojode ag ua testified at the hear ing that he did not go inside the house, bu t he a c kn ow le dg e d h a vin g c on ve rs a tio ns wi th a pp e lla nt i n w hic h a

pp e lla nt s a id h e so ld d

ru g s. Of fi c e rs e xec ute d a

se arc h warr ant at the He rn and e z ho us e on the mor nin g of Au g us t 6, 2004. Appellant wa s found in a bedr oom. He had $200 in c ash, but no drug s, wea pons, or other contra band we re f

ound on his pe rson or in the room. Over $5000 in cash wa s found in a lock box in a pp e lla nt’ s si ste r’ s r oo m. A

pp e lla nt’ s b ro the r a

nd ano the r m an w e re in t

he do wnst a ir s f

a mil y
ro om. Du

ri nga se arc h o f th is roo m, o ff

ic e rs fo un d 1 .7 g ra

ms o f c oc a ine , b a g s o f p ow de r u se d to dilute coca ine prior to sale , scale s, and seve ral fir ear ms with ammunit ion. Appellant re fer s us to severa l opinions t hat he a rg ues support the conclusion that the
e vid e nc e is i ns uf

fi c ie nt t o s us ta in h is co nv ic tio n for the po sse ssi on of the c oc a ine fo un d in the fa mil y
ro om. B ut t

he State ’s burd e n o f p ro of a t a re vo c a tio n he ari ngis l e ss t ha n th a t r e qu ir e d to c on vic t. Th e c oc a ine wa s f

ound in a pp e lla nt’ s re sid e nc e , in a roo m th a t w a s r e g ula rl y vis ite d b y

him and his brother. Offic ers had also seen visit ors coming and g oing from t hat room in a manner indicative

2 of drugdealing . Appellant told Ojodeagua that he w as d ea l ing dr ug s. We hold that the preponde ranc e of the probative e vidence supports a finding that appellant knowing ly exercised c are , c us to dy , an d c o n t r o l o v e r t h e c o c a i n e . W e n e e d n o t d e c i d e w h e t h e r t h e e v i d e n c e a l s o s u p p o rt s a fi nd ingthat a

pp e lla nt p os se sse d th e fi re arm s f ound in t he same ro om.4 The orde r re voking c ommunity supervision is affir

med.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___________________________________ W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pury ear Affir med Filed: May

9, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh