### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 8 -00 664 -CR

Se r gio Sie r r a , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 390TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 9030 515 , HO NORAB LE JULIE H . KO CUREK , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
The district cour

t gr anted the State’ s motion t o rev o k e S erg io Sierra’ s community

supervision, adjudicated him guilty of the off ense of secur ing e x ecution of a document by de c e pti on , a

nd se nte nc e d h im t o f

ive y e ars ’ i mpr iso nme nt. I n h is s ole po int of e rr or , Si e rr a

a sse rt s that the district court a

bused its discretion in revoking his community supervision. We will affirm the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s jud g me nt.
BACK GR OUND

At the tim e of

the a lle g e d o ff

e ns e , Si e rr a

wa s a lic e ns e d atto rn e y

in t he State of

Te xas. I n November

2003, Sierra w as indicted for ag g ravated sec uring execution of a d o cument by dece ption, first-deg ree felony ; ag g ravated sec uring execution of a doc ument by dec ep t ion, thirddeg ree felony ; ag g ravated t heft, first-deg ree felony ; and two counts of a g g ravated theft, third-de g ree fe lony . T he ind ic tme nt a lle g e d, in r e le va nt p art , th a t Sie rr a ind

uc e d the vic tim s to tr ans fe r f un ds to2

him by misrepre senting that he had obtained a favor able court judg ment that “pre sented a n excellent opportunity
. . . to ma

k e a s u b s ta n ti a l r e tu r n o n [th e ir ] inv e s tm e n t, ” w h e n , in f a c t, Si e r r a h a d no inv olv e me nt i n o bta ini ngthe jud g me nt.

I n D e c e mb e r

2 0 0 5 , Si e r

r a p le d g u il ty to th e f ir s t- deg ree ag g ravated sec uring execution of a doc ument by

dece ption count, and the State w aived the r emaining char g es. The district c ourt place d Sierra on de fer

red a djudication community supervision for f

ive y ear s. The conditions of Sie rr a ’s c omm

un ity su pe rv isi on inc lud e d res tituti on

in t he a mou nt o f $ 27 5, 00 0, wi th m on thl y pay ments of $6,000 until the total was paid.

On April 25, 2 0 0 7 , the State filed its first motion to proceed w ith an adjudication of g uilt. The State alleg ed that Sierra violated the terms and c onditions of his deferr ed adjudication by , among other thing s, failing to pay restitution. At the hear ing on the motion to proceed wi th a dju dic a tio n, Sie rr a

a g re e d to ple a d tr

ue to t he a lle g a tio n th a t he fa ile d to pa y re sti tut ion

in exchang e for

the district court a g reeing to “hold off” on its ruling until after a subseque nt hear ing schedule d for January

31, 2008. Although the re is no re cord of a J anuar y 31 hear ing be fore us, on Fe bruar y 4, 2008, the di strict court ordere d that Sierra’ s community supervision be c ontinued and not r evoked. Howeve r, beca use Sierra had been delinquent in his restitution pa y ments, th e tot al
a mou nt o f r e sti tut ion

ow e d h ad in creased . T hu s, the dis tr ic t c ourt mod if ie d th a t c on dit ion

of his
c omm un ity su pe rv isi on and or dere d that he pa

y re sti tut ion

in t he a mou nt o f $ 24 3, 26 5. 39 , w ith monthly pay ments of $7,610.00 beg inning in Mar ch 2008. On J une 3, 2008, the State f iled another

motion to proceed w ith an adjudication of g uilt. I n this mot ion, the State alleg ed that Sierra :The he aringtook place on October 7 and Oc tober 20, 2008. The State prese nted 1 its e vid e nc e on Oct ob e r 7 . A ft e r t he State re ste d it s c a se , d e fe ns e c ouns e l r e qu e ste d “ so me tim e to ge t my witnesses here .” The district cour t gr anted the r equest, a

nd the hea

ring was c ontinued on October 20. The only

witness to testify

for the de fense was Sierr a. 3 • Fa iled to pay

Communi ty

Supervision Fee s and is delinquent $345.00;

• Fa iled to pay

Court Costs and is delinquent $45.00;

• Fa iled to pay

Restituti on and is delinquent $22,830.00;

• Fa iled to pay

Crime Stoppers and is delinquent $29.29; and

• Fa iled to complete 300 Hour s of Communit y Service Restituti on.
At the hea

ring on this mot ion to adjudicate , Sierra ple aded not true to the State’s alleg ations. The district court then proce eded to he ar e vidence from both the State and Sier ra. At the conc lusion of 1 the he ari ng , th e dis tr ic t c ourt fo un d a ll o f t

he S tat e’s all eg a tio ns tr

ue and g ra nte d th e mot ion

to adjudicate g uilt. The district c ourt then sentenc ed Sierra to f ive y ear s’ imprisonment. This appeal followed.
STA ND AR D A ND SCO P E OF RE VI EW We reviewa trial c ourt’s dec ision to revoke probation for abuse of discre tion. Ri c k e ls

v . S tat e , 2 02 S.W. 3d

75 9, 76 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 06 ); Ca rdon a v . S tat e , 665 S.W .2d 492, 493 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 84 ). Ab us e of dis c re tio n o ccur s “ on ly

wh e n th e tr ia l ju dg e ’s de c isi on wa s so clea rly wrongas to lie outside the zone within which rea sonable pe rsons might disag ree .” Can tu
v . S tat e , 842 S.W .2d 667, 682 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).4 I n probation re vocation proc eeding s, the State has the burde n of provinga violation of the terms of probation by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. Ri c k

e ls , 202 S.W .3d at 763-64; Cobb

v . S tat e , 8 51 S.W. 2d

87 1, 87 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 93 ); W ill is v . S tat e , 2 S.W .3d 397, 399 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, no pet.). The S tate satisfies this standard when the g reater we ight of the
cre dible evidenc e bef

ore the court cre ates a re asonable belief that a condition of probation has been violated as a lleg ed. Ri c k

e ls , 202 S.W. 3d

a t 76 4; J e nk ins v . S tat e , 7 40 S.W. 2d

43 5, 43 7 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 83 ). I f t

he State fa ils to mee t its burd e n o f p ro of , th e tr ia l c ourt

a bu se s it s d isc re tio n in revokingcommunity

supervision. Cardona , 6 65 S.W. 2d a t 49 3- 94 ; Che rry

v . S tat e , 215 S.W .3d 917, 919 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 2007, pet. ref’d)
. The trial c o u rt i s th e ju d g e o f th e c r e d ib il it

y o f th e w it n e s s e s an d

th e w e ig h t t o be g iven their testimony
. Ga rre tt v. S tate , 6 19 S.W. 2d 17 2, 17 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 81 ); Mauney

v . S tat e , 107 S.W .3d 693, 695 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, no pet.). We vie w the evide nce pr esente d in a re vo ca t i on proce eding in the light most favor able to the tria l court’s ruling
. Se e Ga rre tt , 61 9 S. W.2 d at 17 4; Mauney , 107 S.W .3d at 695. When mor e than one violation of the conditions of community

supervision is found by the trial court, the revoc ation order shall be af firmed if one sufficie nt gr ound supports the court’ s order
. Mo or e v . S tat e , 605 S.W .2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 80 ); Le ac h v . S

tat e , 170 S.W .3d 669, 672 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 2005, pet. ref’d)
. AN AL YSI S One of the State’s alleg ations was that Sierra failed to pa y restitution a s h e had been or dere d. At the hear ing, the State prese nted evidenc e to suppor t this allegation. Ange l Noble, one of the probation off

icer s assig ned to Sierra ’s ca se, testified that, since J une 2008 , S i er ra had5

been de linquent on paying r estitution in the amount of $22,830. The total amount of r estitution on which S ierra

had bee n delinquent, ac cordingto Noble, was $60,880. Janie Ruiz , Sierra’ s primary probation off

icer , simil arly

testified that Sierra

was be hind “about $61,000” on r estitution. At the he a ri ng , S i e r

r a d i d n o t d i s p u t e t h a t h e w a s d e l i n qu e n t
. I n s t e a d , h e p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e t e n d i n g to show that he wa s unable to pay restitution, or any of t he other court-or dere d pay ments that he had fa ile d to make , b e c a

us e of va ri ou s f ina nc ia l di ff ic ult ie s h e ha s e xpe ri e nc e d s inc e his lic e ns e to prac tice law w as suspende d following his guilty plea. On appe al, Sierra ag ain does not dispute that he fa iled to pay restitution. Rather, he
argue s th a t hi s ina

bil ity to pa

y wa s an a ff

ir ma tiv e de fe ns e to t

he State ’s a lle g a tio ns of

no np ay me nt. Acc ording to Sierra, the State f ailed to re fute thi s evidenc e, and, there fore , the di strict court a bused its discretion by

revok i n g h i s co mmunity supervision on that basis. As support for his position, Sierra a ppear s to rely

on the ver sion of section 21(c ) of the c ommunity supervision statute in eff ect pri o r t o S eptember

1, 2007. See Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn. art. 42.12, § 21 (West Supp. 2008). Prior to September 1, 2007, sec tion 21(c) pr ovided:
I n a community

supervision revoc ation hear ing at which it is alleg ed only that the defe ndant violated the c onditions of comm u n ity supervision by

failing to pay c omp e ns a tio n p a id t o a

pp oin te d c ouns e l, c omm un it y su pe rv isi on fe e s, c ourt

c os ts, restitution, or repa

rations, the inability

of the de fenda

nt to pay as orde red by

the j u d g e i s ana f

f i r m a t i v e d e f

e n s e t o r e v o c a t i o n , w h i c h t h e d e f e n d an tm u s tp r o v e b y a preponde ranc e of e vidence
. See Act of May 26, 1993, 73rd L eg ., R.S., ch. 900, § 4.01, sec. 21(c) , 1993 Tex. Gen. L aws 3586, 3740 (ame nded 2007) ( curr ent ver sion at Tex. C ode Crim. Proc. Ann. a rt. 42.12, § 21(c) (West Supp.6

2008)). As the State points out, howe ver, the leg islature ame nded sec tion 21(c) in 2007 to provide, in r e le va nt p art :
I n a community

supervision revoc ation hear ing at which it is alleg ed o n ly that the defe ndant violated the conditions of community supervision by

failing to pay c omp e ns a tio n pa id t o a

pp oin te d c ouns e l, c omm

un ity su pe rv isi on fe e s, or c ourt c os ts, the state mus t pr ov e by a pr e po nd e ra nc e of the e vid e nc e that th e de fe nd ant w a s a ble to pay and did not pay

as orde red by

the judg e.
Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn. art. 42.12, § 21(c ). The amendment applies to c ommunity supervision
revoc ation hear ings “ held on or after the eff ective date of this Act,” which wa s September 1, 2007. See Act of J une 15, 2007, 80th L eg ., R.S., ch. 604, § 2, 2007 Tex. Gen. L aws 1160. B eca use Sierra ’s
revoc ation hear ing w as held in Oc tober 2008, the c urre nt law applies.

Un de r the c ur

re nt statut e , the ina

bil ity to pa

y is no lon g e r an a ff

ir mat iv e def

ense to nonpay

ment. I nstead, the State is now r equire d t o prove that the defe ndant “wa s able to pay and did not pay .” Se e id .; se e als o Mc Cla in v . S tat e , N o . 0 4

- 0 7
- 0 0 8 6 1

- C R , 2 0 0 8 T e x . A p p . LE X IS 7 0 3 6 , at *5-9 (T ex. App.—San Antonio S ept. 24, 2008, no pet.) ( not desig nated f or publication) (applying c urre nt statute to St ate’ s alleg ations of nonpay ment of cour

t costs). This chang e thus aids Si e r r a w it h r e s p e c t to th e ty

p e s o f c o u rt- o r d e r e d p ay

me n ts c o v e r e d b y th e s tatute
. H o w e ver, the 2007 amendments a lso removed r esti t u t i on from the c lass of pay ments cover ed by

the statute. Consequently , Sierra’ s ability or inability

to pay , wh i l e still relevant to the State’ s alleg ations of nonpay ment of community

supervision fee s and cour t costs, is im materia l to the State’s alleg ation reg ardingrestitution.7 On this recor d, viewing the evidenc e in the light most favor able to the district cour t’s ruling , we conclude that the State satisfied its burden to prove by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e that Sierra f

ailed to pay

restitution as o rd er ed
. As this gr ound is sufficient to support the district court’s order revoking Sierra’ s community supervision, we ne ed not addr ess the State’s other alleg ations. We overrule Sierra’ s sole point of err or.
CO NC LU SION We affir m the judgme nt of the district court.

_______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: August 26, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh