Opinion filed February 5, 2015 

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-12-00337-CR

__________

DAVID ADAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 35th District Court

Brown County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR21482

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, David Adams, appeals the judgment in which the trial court 

revoked his community supervision for a conviction of delivery of a controlled 

substance. In two issues on appeal, he argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient 

to prove that he violated any conditions of his community supervision and (2) the 
2

State and trial court violated his due process rights when they failed to inquire into 

his ability to pay before the court revoked his community supervision. We affirm.

Background Facts

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant originally pleaded guilty to the 

offense of delivery of a controlled substance. The trial court sentenced Appellant 

to confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice for a term of two years but then probated that sentence and placed

Appellant on community supervision for five years.

On September 24, 2012, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s 

community supervision. The State alleged that Appellant violated the terms and 

conditions of his community supervision in at least nine different ways.

At the hearing on the motion to revoke, Appellant pleaded not true to all of 

the State’s allegations. The State presented evidence that Appellant committed a 

new criminal offense less than one month after he received community 

supervision, failed to report for community supervision, and made no payments at 

all. A code enforcement officer and a city marshal both testified that a marihuana 

plant was growing on Appellant’s property within 150 feet of Appellant’s house. 

The State also offered evidence that Appellant missed two community supervision

meetings and failed to make any payments as ordered.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found all of the State’s 

allegations to be true. The trial court revoked Appellant’s community supervision 

and ordered him to serve his original sentence of confinement for two years.

Analysis

In his first issue, Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove 

that he had violated any terms of his community supervision. A trial court’s 

decision to revoke community supervision is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 

Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The State has the 
3

burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed a 

violation of the conditions of his community supervision. Id. at 763–64; Cobb v. 

State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). If the State fails to meet its 

burden of proof, the trial court abuses its discretion if it revokes the community 

supervision. Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493–94 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). 

The trial court is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight 

given to their testimony, and we review the evidence in the light most favorable to 

the trial court’s ruling. Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. 

[Panel Op.] 1981). Proof of one violation of the terms of community supervision 

is sufficient to revoke Appellant’s community supervision. Sanchez v. State, 603 

S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980).

After testimony by both the State and Appellant, the trial court found all of 

the allegations to be true. There is sufficient evidence to support at least one of the 

allegations that Appellant violated the terms of his community supervision. 

Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it 

revoked Appellant’s community supervision. Appellant’s first issue on appeal is 

overruled.

In his second issue, Appellant argues that his due process rights were 

violated because the State did not present evidence of Appellant’s ability, or 

inability, to pay. However, as the evidence is sufficient to prove that Appellant 

violated at least one of the other terms of his community supervision—a term 

unrelated to his failure to pay, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it 

revoked his community supervision. Sanchez, 603 S.W.2d at 871. Thus, we need 

not consider Appellant’s due process contention. When a trial court finds several 

violations of community supervision conditions, we affirm the revocation order if 

the proof of any single allegation is sufficient. Id.; Hart v. State, 264 S.W.3d 364, 

367 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2008, pet. ref’d).
4

Furthermore, Appellant did not raise this issue at the hearing on the motion 

to revoke or in a motion for new trial. We have previously held that the failure to 

present this due process argument in the trial court results in a waiver of the error 

on appeal. Johnson v. State, No. 11-11-00004-CR, 2012 WL 3891621, at *2 (Tex. 

App.—Eastland Sept. 6, 2012, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication); see TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a) (stating that, as a prerequisite to 

presenting a complaint for appellate review, a timely request, objection, or motion 

must be made and ruled upon by the trial court); Pena v. State, 285 S.W.3d 459, 

464 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (finding that a due process complaint can be waived 

on appeal). Accordingly, Appellant waived his due process issue when he failed to 

raise it in the trial court. Appellant’s second issue on appeal is overruled.

This Court’s Ruling

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

JOHN M. BAILEY 

JUSTICE

February 5, 2015

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.