1 We con s ider the rev ocation reg arding the offense of pos session of a contr olled substance of less than one g ram in cause number 07-04-0552-C R (the “drug cas e”). The rev ocation regarding the offense of tampering w ith evidence is consider ed in cause number 07-04-553-CR (the “tamperi ng case”). The trial cour t held a consol idated hearing on the Motionsto Revoke in these two cases. We have revi ewed these cases as companion cases and resolve them here togethe r. NO. 07-04-0552-CR 07-04-0553-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A DECEMBER 19 , 2005

______________________________ RONALD DALE LEDBETTER, APP ELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A PPELLEE

_________________________________ FROM THE 242 ND DISTRIC T COURT O F HALE COUN TY; NO. B13321-9902, B 14090-0106; HONO RABLE ED SELF, JUDGE

_______________________________ Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Appellant

Ronald Dale Ledbett er app eals from two judgments revoking his community super

vision and sentencing him to incarceration. 1 We will affirm.2

On June 18, 1999, appel lant plead guilty to the offense of possessi on of a controlled substance in an amount of less than one g ram. The court sentenced him to two years in prison probated for a term of five year s and a $1,000 fine. The S tate filed a Moti on to Revoke C ommu nity Super vision on July 12, 200 1 based, in part , on the offense of tam pering w ith evidence. On August 24, 2001, appellant entered a plea of true to the allegations

in the Motion to Revoke Community Supervis ion. The trial court then continued him on community s upervisi on subject to an additional fine, a two-year extension, and the completion of the Su bstance AbuseFelon y Pun ishmen t Faci lity (“SA FPF” ) prog ram. Appellant

wasordered to compl ete 400 hours of communit y serv ice in thedrug case which remained in effect upon hi s community s upervisi on being conti nued.
On August 24, 2001, appellan t also plead guilty to the offense of tampering with evidence. The court sentenced him to two years confinement suspend ed for fiv e years community

super vis ion, a $1,000 fi ne, and the com pleti on of theSAFPFprog ram. Appellant

wasordered to compl ete an additional 400 hours ofcommunity service after his release from SAFP F in the tamperi ng case.
On July 21, 2004, the State filed a M otion to Revoke Community Supervisi on in both the drug case and the tampering case. In i ts Motion s, the State all eged the follow ing violatio ns of the terms of appellant’s community super vision: (1) appellant

failed to avoid controlled substances, s pecifically (a) on or about June 3, 2004, appellant tested posi tive for amphetamines, (b)

on or about May

19, 2004, a ppellant used marijuana and amphetamine s, (c) on or ab out M ay 20, 2004 , app ella nt te sted posi tive for marijuana and amphetamine s, and (d) the defendant used amphetamines on M ay 14 and May 15, 2004;3

(2) appellant assoc iated wit h a person w ith a crimi nal record on June 16, 2004; (3) appellant

failed to pay his fine and cour t costs, a n d (4) in the drug case, appellant failed to complete his community ser vice hour

s.
The trial cour

t held a consol idated hearing on the Motionsto Revoke on November 12, 2004, and appellant plead not

true to the al legations i n the State’s M otions to Rev oke. The trial court found appellan t had violated the terms of his co mmunity supe rvisi on as alleged in paragr

aphs one, three and four in the drug case and one and thr ee in the tampering case. In other words, t he trial cour

t found appellant had fail ed to avo id controlled substances, fail ed to pay fees and costs, and failed to complete his community service hours. The trial cour t revoked a ppellant’s community super vision and sentenced appellant to tw

o years confinement in the State Jail Div ision in eac h case. Appellant

raises the following two issues on appeal: (1) the trial co urt abused i ts discretion by finding that appellant used controll ed substancesand intentional ly failed to make payments asrequired and (2) the term and condition of pr obation requi ring appell ant to perform community

supervis ion was in v iolation of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 42.12 , section 16( a)(3) and w as, therefore, void.
In a proceeding to revoke probation, the bur den of proof is on the State to show by
a preponderance of the evidence that the probationer

violated a condition of probation as alleged in the motion to revoke. Cobb v. State , 85 1 S

. W. 2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.App. 1993). Proof of any one of the alleged violatio ns is enough to support an order to revoke. Moses v. State , 590 S.W.2d 223, 224 (Tex.Cri m.App. 1979); Gobell v. Stat e , 528 S.W.2d4

583, 586 (Tex.Crim.App. 1975). T he standa rd by which an order revoking probation is
rev ie wed on appeal is abus e of discretion. Naquin v. State , 607 S.W.2d 583, 586 (Tex.Cri m.App. 1980); Lloyd v. State , 574 S.W .2d 159, 160 (Tex.Crim.App . 1978).
When the standard of

review is abuse of discretion, the record must simply contain
some evidence tosupport the deci sion made by t he trial cour t. Herald v. State , 67 S.W.3d 292, 293 (Tex.App.–A marillo 2001, no pe t.); Becker v. Sta te , 33 S.W .3d 64, 66-7 (Tex.App.–El Paso 2000, no pet.) ; Brumbalow v . State , 933 S.W.2d 298, 300 (Tex.App.–W aco 1996, pet. ref’d) . In determini ng the sufficiency of the evidence, we vi ew the evidence i n the light most favorable to the trial court’s ru ling. Jones v. State , 589 S.W .2d 419, 421 (Tex.Crim.App . 1979).
When quest ione d by th e Sta te at the N ove mber 12, 200 4 revocat ion hea ring, appellant’s commun ity supervision officer, Marty Mejorado, testified as f ollows:
Q. Was the defendan t ordered to avoid the use of– avoid inju rious a nd vicioushabits o f

any nature, including the use of alcoh ol, narcotics, controlled substances, harmful drugs, glue, paint , any other chemical which mig ht cause intox ication? A. Yes, sir. Q. Has the defendant avoided those as he was ordered to do ? A. No, sir. Q. In w hat way has he failed to do t hat? A. W hen I spoke to Mr. Ledbetter at an office visi t on May 20 th of 2004, a routine office v isit, I asked him if h e had us ed any dru gs or alcohol. He stated he hadn’t. I went to get a urinalysis cup fo r testing, and at thattime he advi sed me that he had used marijuana and methamphet amines. Q. Did you test him for the presence of tho se substances?2 No question is raised concerning the admissibility of Mejorado’s testimony ab out

appellant’s statement agai nst interest. T EX . R. E VID . 803(24). Even if this testimony were c onsidered hearsay w ithout objecti on, “[h]earsay testimony ad mitted wit houtprope r objection at a probation rev ocation hearing has some probative value and may , in and of itself, constitute suf ficient evidence in support of an Order revoking probation.” Gloria v. State , 676 S.W.2d 194, 197 (Tex.App.–C o rpus Chris ti 1984 , no pet .) (citing Frazier v. State , 600 S.W.2d 271, 274 (Tex.Cri m.App. 1979) (Odom, J., dissenti ng)). 5 A. Yes, sir. Q. What were the res ults of that test? [Objection by

counsel susta ined by trial court] Q. The defendant di d admit to the use of what? A. Marijuana and methamphet amines. Appellant

argues thi s testimony

is insufficient

to support thetrial court’s findings “because
no evi den ce regardi ng urinaly sis wasever submi tted to the tri al court” an d because “the State failed to introduce ev idence show ing that Appel lant’s drug use took place on or about the dates alleg ed, or even that th e drug use to ok place duri ng the probati onary peri od.” We disagree. Mejorado’s testimony t hat appellant’sMay 20, 2004 admission of drug use came on the heels of

her retrieval of the urinalysis cup is some evidence that the drug use to which he admitted was

sufficiently recent to have been reveal ed by urina lysis and, therefore, would have fallen w ithin the peri od of community supe rvisi on. 2 Herald , 67 S.W.3d at 293; Becker , 33 S.W.3d at 66-7; Brumbalow , 933 S.W.2d at 300. View ing the ev idence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s or der, w e find the testimony of the community supervis ion office r su fficiently established ap pellant violated one of the terms of his community

supervis ion. Jones , 589 S.W.2d at 421. Because th e State is required to6

prove only one ground to prevail on its Motio ns to Revoke, we need not address appellant’s issues reg arding the ot her alleged violati ons. Sanchez v. State , 603 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex.C r im.App. 1980). We hold the tria l court did not abuse its di scretion by revokin g appellant’s community super vision and affirm the judgment of thetrial cour t. Naquin , 607 S.W.2d at 586.
James T. Campbell Justice

Do not publish

.