COURT OF A PPEAL S EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS

L UI S FAB I AN GARCI A, Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

. § § § § § § No. 08-09-00194- CR

Appea l from 283rd District Court of Da llas County , Texas (TC # F- 0752999-T)

O P I N I O N
L uis F abian Gar cia appea ls his conviction of theft of proper ty

. Appellant enter ed a plea of
true to the State’s motion to adjudicate g uilt and the trial court assessed punishment at confine ment in the state jail for two y ear s. For the rea sons that follow, we a ffirm.
F ACTUAL SUMMA RY On August 15, 2007, Appell an t en t er ed a neg otiated pl ea of g uilty to theft. I n acc ordanc e with the plea barg ain, the trial court defe rre d adjudication of g uilt and place d Appellant on defe rre d adjudication community supervision for three y ear s. The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate g uilt alleg ing Appellant violated mu ltiple terms and conditions of probation by testing positive for coca ine, failing to repor t on s ev er al occa sions in 2008 and 2009, failing to perf orm community service hours as direc ted, failing to pay supervision fee s, restit ution, and the fine and
court costs, and failing to repor t to the Comprehensive Assessment and Treatment Service s Prog ram as direc ted by the court. At the hearing on the S tate’s moti on, Appellant ente red a written plea

of
true to the alleg ations stated in the motion. He also stipulated in w riting that he failed to r eport as alleg ed, failed to pay restitution, supervision fee s, fine and court costs though able to do so, he useda controlled substance as alleg ed, failed to complete psy cholog ical evalua tion and/or counseling as

direc ted, and he failed to perf orm community service as direc ted. The trial co u rt ac ce pted Appellant’s plea and assessed his punishment at confine ment for two y ear s in the state jail division.
INABILITY T O P AY
I n his sole issue for revie w, Appellant complains that t h e State failed to show by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e that he was able to pay the require d fee s, restitution, and court costs. The State responds that Appellant not only enter ed a p l ea of true to all of the alleg ations, he stipulated that he had an ability to pay . Fur ther, he has not chall eng ed all of the g rounds for

revoc ation. The trial court was authorized to revoke Appellant’s defe rre d ad j u d ication community supervision and adjudicate his g uilt on the orig inal char g e if the State proved by a preponde ranc e of the evidence that Appellant viol ated an y condition of hi s community supervision. See T E X .C O D E C R I M .P R O C .AN N
. art. 42.12 § 5(b)( Ver non Supp. 2009); Ricke ls v. State , 202 S. W

. 3 d 7 5 9 , 763 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006). We revie w the trial court’s decision to proce ed with an adjudication of g uilt for an abuse of discretion. See T E X .C O D E C R I M .P R O C .AN N
. art. 42.12 § 5(b)( deter mination to
proce ed with adjudication of g uilt on orig inal char g e is revie wable in same manner as order revoking community supervision); Ricke ls , 202 S.W .3d at 763 (orde r re v o king community supervision revie wed for abuse of discretion). The trial court does not abuse its discretion if the order revoking community supervision is supported by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e; in other words, the g rea ter

we i gh t o f t he credible evidence would cre ate a rea sonable belief t hat t he defenda nt has vi olated a condition of his probation. Ricke ls , 202 S.W .3d at 763-64. I n conducting our revie w, we view the evidenc e in the l ight most favor able to the t rial court’s ruling

. Cardona v. Stat e , 665 S.W .2d 492 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984). We defe r to the trial court’s resolution of disputed fac ts and to anyrea sonable inferenc es which can be drawn from those f acts. Cantu v. State , 253 S.W .3d 273, 282 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008).
I n condu ct i n g our revie w, we also keep in mind that if a single g round for revoc ation is supported by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e and is otherwise valid, then an abuse of discretion is
not shown. Sanchez v. State , 603 S.W .2d 869, 871 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980); Gordon v. S t ate , 4
S.W .3d 32, 35 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1999, no pet.). To preva il, an appellant must succ es sfully challeng e all the finding s that support the revoc ation order

. See Jo n es v. State , 571 S.W .2d 191,
193-94 (Tex.Crim.App. [P anel Op.] 1978); Harris v. State , 160 S.W .3d 621, 626 (Tex.App.--Waco 2005, pet. stricken)

. As noted by the State, Appellant enter ed a plea of true to eac h of the seven alleg ations stated in the motion to adjudicate and he stipulated in writing that he had violated the terms and conditions of proba tion by failing to r eport as alleg ed, failing to pa y restitution, supe rvision f ees, a nd the fine and court costs “thoug h able to do so,” by using a con t rol led substance as alleg ed, by failing to complete psy cholog ical evalua tion and/or counseling as direc ted, and by failing to perf orm community service as direc ted. Appellant’s plea of true and stipulation that he failed to pay “thoug h able to do so” is suf

ficient to support the trial court’s finding that Appellant violated the terms and conditions of probation by failing to make the require d pay ments. Fur

ther, Appellant’s plea of true and stipulation of evidenc e is sufficie nt to support eac h of the remai n i n g g rounds for revoc ation which Appellant has failed to challeng e on appea l. Be cau s e the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Appellant’s defe rre d adjudication community supervision and adjudicating
g uilt, we overr

ule the sole point and a ffirm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.
Aug ust 18, 2010 ANN CRAWFORD McCL URE, J usticeBe fore Chew, C.J ., McClure, a nd Rivera, JJ

. (Do Not Publish)