NO. 12-13-00313-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

CARRIE MILLS CRON, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 173RD 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Carrie Mills Cron appeals her conviction for felony theft. Appellant raises one issue on 

appeal, challenging the trial court’s jurisdiction to revoke her community supervision. We 

affirm.

BACKGROUND

A Henderson County grand jury returned an indictment against Appellant, alleging that 

she committed the offense of theft in an amount of $1,500 or more but less than $20,000. 

Appellant was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of six years. 

The State filed a motion to proceed with adjudication of guilt and sentence before Appellant’s 

community supervision expired. Appellant was not arrested, nor was a hearing conducted, until 

after the term of Appellant’s community supervision expired. After a hearing, the trial court 

found the allegations contained in the State’s motion to proceed “true,” adjudicated Appellant 

guilty of theft, and sentenced her to two years of confinement. This appeal followed.

REVOCATION OF COMMUNITY SUPERVISION

In her sole issue, Appellant contends that the trial court lost jurisdiction to adjudicate her 

guilty of the offense of felony theft because the State failed to exercise due diligence to 
2

apprehend her prior to the expiration of her community supervision. The State argues that the 

trial court’s judgment should be affirmed because Appellant’s community supervision was 

revoked on grounds not applicable to the due diligence defense.

Standard of Review

We review a trial court’s judgment revoking community supervision under an abuse of 

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

sufficient ground for revocation will support a trial court’s judgment revoking community 

supervision. Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191, 193-94 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). A trial court’s 

order revoking community supervision will be affirmed if an appellant does not challenge all 

grounds upon which the trial court revoked community supervision. Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 

926, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]1980). 

Applicable Law

At any time during the period of community supervision, a judge may issue a warrant for 

violation of any of the conditions of community supervision and cause the defendant to be 

arrested. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12, § 21(b) (West Supp. 2013). A court retains 

jurisdiction to “revoke, continue, or modify community supervision, regardless of whether the 

period of community supervision imposed on the defendant has expired, if before the expiration 

the attorney representing the state files a motion to revoke, continue, or modify community 

supervision and a capias is issued for the arrest of the defendant.” Id. art. 42.12, § 21(e). 

It is an affirmative defense to revocation for an alleged failure to report to a supervision 

officer or to remain within a specified place that the state “failed to contact or attempt to contact 

the defendant in person at the defendant’s last known residence address or last known 

employment address, as reflected in the files of the department serving the county in which the 

order of community supervision was entered.” Id. art. 42.12, § 24. Section 24 applies only to 

revocation allegations involving failure to report to an officer as directed, and failure to remain 

within a specified place. See id.; Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d 20, 23-26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012)

(“The legislative history reveals that the Legislature intended to replace the common[]law 

requirement with the due[]diligence statute to reallocate the burden of proof in those instances in 

which the State has timely alleged violations but has not arrested the defendant before the 

community[]supervision period has expired.”). 
3

Discussion

On February 14, 2007, the trial court signed an order that placed Appellant on deferred 

adjudication community supervision for a period of six years.1 The order set forth Appellant’s 

conditions of community supervision, which required Appellant to report to her supervision 

officer at least once each month; pay a supervision fee of $40.00 each month; pay her court 

costs, fine, court appointed attorney’s fees, and restitution at the rate of $255.00 each month until 

paid in full; and complete three hundred hours of community service at the rate of ten hours each 

month.

On October 31, 2007, the State filed its motion to proceed with adjudication of guilt and 

sentence. In its motion, the State alleged that Appellant 

failed to report to her Community Supervision Officer as directed 

for the months of August, September[,] and October, 2007; 

. . . 

failed to pay $40.00 per month as directed for supervision fees for 

the months of August, September[,] and October, 2007; 

. . . 

failed to pay $255.00 per month as directed for [c]ourt costs, 

restitution[,] and a fine for the months of August, September[,] and 

October, 2007; 

[and]

failed to work 10 hours per month of community service work as 

directed for the months of June, July, August, September[,] and 

October, 2007[.]

An order for capias was signed on November 14, 2007, a capias was issued on November 26, 

2007, and Appellant was arrested on August 29, 2013.

The hearing on the State’s motion to proceed with adjudication was conducted well 

beyond the expiration of Appellant’s term of community supervision. However, the trial court 

had jurisdiction because (1) the State filed its motion to proceed with adjudication prior to the 

 

1 The order specified that the term of community supervision was to begin on “this date,” which was 

February 14, 2007.
4

expiration date, (2) the capias for Appellant’s arrest was issued prior to the expiration of 

Appellant’s community supervision, and (3) the affirmative defense of due diligence is not 

jurisdictional. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12, § 21(b), (e), § 24; see also Garcia, 

387 S.W.3d at 23-24; Isidro v. State, No. 04-13-00071-CR, 2013 WL 5570833, at *3 n.2 (Tex. 

App.—San Antonio Oct. 9, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (common 

law due diligence defense requiring state to prove by preponderance of evidence that it used due 

diligence in executing capias and holding a hearing on motion to revoke replaced by statutory 

defense in Section 24 of article 42.12).

Even if we assume the State failed to exercise due diligence in this case, the trial court 

did not abuse its discretion in adjudicating Appellant’s guilt and revoking her community 

supervision. The due diligence defense is not available with respect to the State’s allegations 

that Appellant failed to pay supervision fees; failed to make payments on the total balance of the 

court costs, restitution, and fine she owed; and failed to work ten hours of community service for 

the months of June, July, August, September, and October. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN.

art. 42.12, § 24; Garcia, 387 S.W.3d at 26. Appellant does not challenge any of these three

grounds on appeal. Because the revocation of Appellant’s community supervision is justified on 

the grounds not challenged on appeal, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in 

adjudicating Appellant’s guilt and revoking her community supervision. See Rickels, 202 

S.W.3d at 763; Moore, 605 S.W.2d at 926; Minex v. State, No. 12-13-00062-CR, 2013 WL 

5966355, at *2 (Tex. App.—Tyler Nov. 6, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication). We overrule Appellant’s sole issue.

 

DISPOSITION

Having overruled Appellant’s sole issue, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

SAM GRIFFITH

Justice

Opinion delivered June 30, 2014.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JUNE 30, 2014

NO. 12-13-00313-CR

CARRIE MILLS CRON,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 173rd District Court 

of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. C-14,833)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed 

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the 

judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment 

of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court 

below for observance.

Sam Griffith, Justice.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.