AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed January 28, 2015.
Court of Appeals
S In The
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-13-01567-CR
No. 05-13-01568-CR
CHARLES EUGENE PATTERSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F10-31643-R and F10-62247-R
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Lang, Brown, and Whitehill 1
Opinion by Justice Brown
Charles Eugene Patterson appeals two judgments revoking his community supervision.
In seven points of error, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his
community supervision. We affirm the trial court’s judgments.
Appellant was indicted for two offenses of failure to register as a sex offender. In
October 2012, appellant pleaded guilty to both offenses pursuant to plea bargain agreements.
The trial court found appellant guilty in each case and placed him on community supervision for
four years in accordance with the plea agreements.
1
The Honorable Kerry FitzGerald, Retired Justice, was a member of the panel at the time this case was submitted. Due to his retirement
from the Court on December 31, 2014, he did not participate in deciding this case. He was replaced on the panel by Justice Bill Whitehill. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 41.1(a).
In October 2013, the State moved to revoke appellant’s community supervision in each
case. In cause number F10-31643-R, the motion alleged that appellant violated conditions o and
q by failing to: complete community service hours as directed (condition o); participate in
counseling through an approved sex offender treatment provider within 45 days of referral
(condition q); and make an observable, deliberate, and diligent effort to comply with the
directions and instructions of the sex offender treatment provider during July 2013 through
September 20, 2013, resulting in unsuccessful discharge from treatment (also condition q). The
motion in cause number F10-62247-R alleged these same three violations and also alleged
appellant violated condition j by failing to pay community supervision fees.
At a hearing on the motions to revoke, appellant pleaded true to the State’s allegations
that he violated conditions j and o. Appellant pleaded not true to violating condition q.
Appellant’s signed written plea of true and stipulation of evidence was admitted into evidence.
Appellant’s probation officer and his sex offender treatment provider testified about the
difficulties they had working with appellant. Appellant’s wife testified on his behalf. The trial
court accepted appellant’s plea of true and found it was freely and voluntarily made. The court
found appellant violated the conditions set out in the State’s motions, granted the motions to
revoke, and assessed punishment at three years’ confinement in each case.
In seven points of error, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in
revoking his community supervision based on the three violations alleged in cause number F10-
31643-R and based on the four violations alleged in cause number F10-62247-R. He contends
his unsuccessful discharge from treatment and his failure to pay community supervision fees
were due to his inability to pay. Citing Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983), appellant
maintains that, even when a defendant pleads true, only a willful failure to pay fees supports
revocation. He also contends his 45-day deadline for participating in counseling had been
–2–
extended and that he had begun community service hours and was not required to complete the
hours until the term of supervision ended.
We review an order revoking community supervision under an abuse of discretion
standard. Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). A plea of true,
standing alone, is sufficient to support revocation of community supervision. See Cole v. State,
578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). Further, proof of any one violation is
sufficient to support revocation of community supervision. Lee v. State, 952 S.W.2d 894, 900
(Tex. App.—Dallas 1997, no pet.).
We need not reach appellant’s argument about his inability to pay the costs of sex
offender treatment or his community supervision fees. Appellant pleaded true to violating
condition o, which the State alleged he violated in both cases. That condition, regarding
community service hours, had nothing to do with appellant’s ability to pay. Appellant’s plea of
true to this violation, standing alone, is sufficient to support revocation. We therefore conclude
the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant’s community supervision. We
overrule appellant’s points of error.
We affirm the trial court’s judgments.
/Ada Brown/
ADA BROWN
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.
131567F.U05
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHARLES EUGENE PATTERSON, On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District
Appellant Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F10-31643-R.
No. 05-13-01567-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Brown. Justices
Lang and Whitehill participating.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 28th day of January, 2015.
–4–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHARLES EUGENE PATTERSON, On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District
Appellant Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F10-62247-R.
No. 05-13-01568-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Brown. Justices
Lang and Whitehill participating.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 28th day of January, 2015.
–5–
Charles Eugene Patterson v. State
Combined Opinion