Opinion issued July 24, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 13
- 00592
- CR

——————————— BRENTON ALLEN HOPE , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas 1 Trial Court Ca se No. 12
- 14208

MEMORANDUM OPINION After appellant, Brenton Allen Hope , pleaded guilty to the offense of del ivery of a controlled substance 2 with an agreed punishment recommendation

1 T he Supreme Court of Texas , p ursuant to its docket equalization authority, transferred the appeal to this c ourt. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. §

. 73.001 (Vernon 2013 ) (authorizing transfer).2

from the State, the trial court deferred adjudication of his guilt and placed him o n community supervision for two years. The State subsequently moved to adjudicate appellant’ s guilt, alleging three violations of the condition s of his community supervision. After a hearing, the trial court foun d two of the allegations true, found appellant guilty , and assessed his punishment at confinement for two years

. In his
sole issue, appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence during the revocation hearing

. We affirm. Background On November 5, 2012, the trial court placed appellant o n community supervision subject to certain conditions, including that he commit no new offense s , abstain from using or possessing “any drug,” and pay fines and fees as assessed. In its motion to adju dicate appellant’s guilt, the State alleged that he committed the offense of possession of a controlled substance, tested positive for “metabolic by

- products of cocaine , ” and failed to pay $480 i n court

- assessed fees

. Appellant pleaded “ not true ” to the allega t ions.
At a hearing on the State’s motion , Jefferson County Adult Probation (“JCAP”) Officer J. Kirkpatrick testified that appellant had tested positive for the
use of a controlled substance and failed to p ay anything toward his c ourt

- assess ed

2 See T EX
. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN
. §§ 481.102(8 ), 481.115(b) (Vernon 2010).3

fine and fees

. JCAP Urinalysis Technician B. Strother testified that on February 28, 2013, appellant tested “positive for cocaine.” And appellant’s laboratory
results , which were admitted into evidence , reflect a positive result for cocaine use

. Beau mont Police Department Officer T. Armstrong testified that on March 17, 2013, he was dispatched to the parking lot of an apartment complex to investigate a report that three men were selling narcotics from a black Buick LeSabre automobile. Upon his arriva l, he saw appellant getting out of the driver’s

seat of the Buick , and he smelled marijuana coming from the Buick and on appellant’s breath. A fter a ppellant consented to a searc h of his person, Armstrong found a large amount of cash in appellant’s pocket ; he also saw a marijuana cigarette laying in plain view on the car’s console. After additional officers arrived, Armstrong and the officers searched the Buick and found a bottle containing what they believed to be phencyclidine, or “ PCP ,” located o n the driver’s seat. And Jefferson County Narcotics Services Forensic Chemist R. Sweetenham testified that the bottle contained phencyclidine weighing 8.17 grams. Appellant testified that when Officer Armstrong arrived, he was just getting a cigarette out of th e Buick , which belonged to someone else . He asserted that the money in his pocket was from his income tax refund and the phencyclidine belonged to his sister’s friend. Appellant further asserted that the February 20134

positive drug test result was inaccu rate because he had “just come from the jailhouse” and had not use d cocaine. At the close of the hearing , the trial court found true the State’ s allegations that appellant had committed a new offense and had tested positive for the use of a controlled subs tance . It further found appellant guilty and assessed his puni shment
at confinement for two years. Standard of Review Appellate review of an order adjudicating guilt is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion. T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2013 ) (“The determination [to adjudicate guilt] is reviewable in the same manner as a revocation hearing conducted under Section 21 of this article in a case in which an adjudication of guilt had not been deferr ed.”); Rickels v. State , 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“Appellate review of an order revoking probation is limi ted to abuse of the trial court’ s discretion.”). The trial court’ s decision must be supported by a preponderance of the eviden ce. R ickels , 202 S.W.3d at 763. The evidence meets this standard when the greater weight of the credible evidence creates a reasonable belief that a defendant has violated a condition of his community supervi sion. Id . at 764.
We examine the evidence in the li ght mo st favorable to the trial court’s
order. Garrett v. State , 619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). As the sole5

trier of fact, a trial court determine s the credibility of witnesses. See id .; Jones v.
State , 787 S.W.2d 96, 97 (Tex. App.

— Hou ston [1st Dist.] 1990, pet. ref’d). When a trial court finds several violations of community

- supervision conditions, we will affirm if the proof of any single allegation is sufficient. See
Garcia v. State , 387 S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012 ) ; Canseco v. State , 199 S.W.3d 437, 439 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d). Thus, to prevail on appeal, a defendant must successfully challenge all of the findin gs that support the trial court’ s revocation order. See Garcia , 387 S.W .3d at 26 ; Moore v. State , 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980). Adjudication of Guilt In his sole issue , appellant argues that the trial court erred in adjudicating his guilt because it erroneously admitted into evidence State’s exhibi t number two, the phencyclidine , “ in violation of [his] constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure.” Appellant asserts that the “basis of the officer’s detention of [him], and the subsequent search of the vehicle, were based up on [his] nervousness,” whic h “falls short of a constitutionally permissible detention” and did not support the “subsequent search of the vehicle and discovery of narcotics

. ” As noted above, however, the State need only establish one suffi cient ground for revocation to support the tr ial court’ s order to adjudicate guilt

. See Garcia , 387
S.W .3d at 26

. T he record shows that , in addition to ordering that appellant commit6

no new offense, the trial court ordered that appellant abstain from using or possessing “any drug. ” At the hearing on the State’s motion , Officer Kirkpatrick testified that ap pellant tested positive for use of a controlled substance , and Strother specifically testified that on February 28, 2013, appellant tested “positive
for cocaine.” The trial court admitte d into evidence appellant’s laboratory results , which reflect a positive result for cocaine use on that date

. E vidence of a positive narcotics test i s sufficient to establish that a ppellant failed to abstain from the use of a control led substance as requ ired by the trial court’ s order

. See Stevens v.
State , 900 S.W.2d 348, 352 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 1995, pet. ref’d).
The t rial court could have reasonably found , by a preponderance of the evidence , that appellant violated a term or condition of his community supervision by using a controlled substance. Thus , we need not address appellant’ s challenge to the evid ence supporting the trial court’s finding of true to the State’s allegation
that he had a lso committed the offense of possession of a controlled substance

. See
Garcia , 387 S.W .3d at 26

. Accordingly, we further hold that the trial court did not

err in adjudicating appellant’ s guilt. We overrule appellant’s sole issue.7 Conclusion We affirm the judgment of the trial court

.

Terry Jennings Justice Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Massengale

. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2( b).