AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed October 20, 2021 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00701-CR 

RICHARD DOUGLAS MCCUTCHEON, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F-1571547-I 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Schenck, Smith, and Garcia 

Opinion by Justice Smith 

Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Richard Douglas McCutcheon 

pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography, a third degree felony. The trial 

court found the evidence supported the plea, deferred adjudication, and placed 

appellant on community supervision. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to 

adjudicate guilt and revoke community supervision based on violation of seven 

conditions. Appellant pleaded true and made a judicial confession to violation of all 

seven conditions. The trial court found appellant violated all seven conditions, 

adjudicated guilt, and sentenced appellant to eight years in prison. In five issues, 

appellant alleges the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his community 
 –2– 

supervision for failing to (1) avoid persons of disreputable or harmful character, (2) 

pay supervision fees as directed, (3) complete community service hours, (4) pay a 

sex offender fee of $5.00 per month to the sex offender fund, and (5) comply with 

all directives and instructions provided by the registered sex offenders treatment 

provider or its staff. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

We review an order revoking community supervision for an abuse of 

discretion. Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). A single 

violation of a probation condition is sufficient to support a trial court’s decision 

revoking probation. See Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). 

A plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support revocation of community 

supervision. See Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 

1979); see also Foley v. State, No. 05-18-01268-CR, 2020 WL 2745250, at *1 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas May 27, 2020, pet. ref’d). Thus, in order to prevail on appeal, the 

defendant must successfully challenge all of the findings that support the revocation 

order. Silber v. State, 371 S.W.3d 605, 611 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, 

no pet.). 

The record shows that appellant pleaded true to violating seven conditions of 

his community supervision: (c), (j), (l), (u), (w), (x), and (aa). His plea, standing 

alone, is sufficient to support revocation of community supervision. See Garcia, 

387 S.W.3d at 26; Cole, 578 S.W.2d at 128. Moreover, because appellant has not 

challenged each violation supporting the trial court’s decision to revoke community 
 –3– 

supervision and adjudicate guilt, we must affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

 See 

Olabode v. State, 575 S.W.3d 878, 880–81 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2019, pet. ref’d); see 

also Phillips v. State, No. 05-16-00850-CR, 2017 WL 2875522, at *2 (Tex. App.—

Dallas July 6, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). We overrule 

appellant’s five issues and affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 

200701F.U05 

 

1

 Appellant did not challenge conditions (u) and (aa) relating to viewing and possessing pornography. 

/Craig Smith/

CRAIG SMITH 

JUSTICE 
 –4– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

RICHARD DOUGLAS 

MCCUTCHEON, Appellant 

No. 05-20-00701-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the Criminal District 

Court No. 2, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F-1571547-I. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Smith. 

Justices Schenck and Garcia 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered October 20, 2021