v.
State
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
OCTOBER 19, 2011
JUSTIN DAVID CARTER, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
FROM THE COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT AT LAW #1 OF DENTON COUNTY;
NO. CR-2008-00617-A; HONORABLE JIM CROUCH, JUDGE
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Justin David Carter, appeals his conviction for assault-family violence.[1] Through five points of error, Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion when it found he had violated the conditions of his community supervision and revoked his community supervision. We affirm.
Appellant’s community supervision and sentenced him to 120 days confinement in the Denton County Jail. This appeal followed.
Standard of Review
We review an order revoking community supervision for an abuse of discretion. Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (citing Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984)). The State has the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed a violation of the conditions of community supervision. 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 by revoking community supervision. Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 493- 94. The trial court is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony, and the evidence is reviewed in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling. Id. at 493. Proof of one violation of the conditions of community supervision is sufficient to support a revocation order. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 21(b) (West 2006); Antwine v. State, 268 S.W.3d 634, 636 (Tex.App.— Eastland 2008, pet. ref’d) (citing Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980)).
Analysis
Regarding Appellant’s fourth point of error contending that the trial court abused its discretion in its determination Appellant failed to submit to testing for alcohol or illicit drug use by missing seven scheduled appointments to provide urine specimens, the record of the adjudication hearing indicates that Rhett Wallace, a Denton County probation officer, testified that Appellant failed to report for drug testing seven times and Appellant admitted to each violation. Because the preponderance of the evidence presented to the trial court demonstrates a violation of condition J of the order continuing Appellant’s community supervision, the trial court properly found the violation and was justified in revoking Appellant’s community supervision on that basis alone. Albright v. State, 13 S.W.3d 817, 819 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2000, pet. ref’d) (citing Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1980)).
Accordingly, Appellant’s fourth point of error is overruled. Our ruling on Appellant’s fourth point of error pretermits his remaining points of error. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.
Conclusion
The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
Patrick A. Pirtle Justice Do not publish