COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 2-08-015-CR
ROBERT OLIN STEEN, JR. APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
------------
FROM THE 355TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOOD COUNTY
------------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
------------
I. Introduction
Appellant Robert Olin Steen, Jr., appeals the adjudication of his guilt for
criminal nonsupport. In one point, he argues that the trial court abused its
discretion by adjudicating him guilty of the offense of criminal nonsupport
because the evidence was legally insufficient to support the allegations in the
State’s motion to proceed to adjudication. We affirm.
1
… See T EX. R. A PP. P. 47.4.
II. Factual and Procedural History
On September 6, 2006, Steen was indicted for criminal nonsupport. 2 On
February 27, 2007, Steen pleaded guilty, and the trial court placed him on
deferred adjudication for five years. The three relevant conditions of Steen’s
community supervision were:
2. Defendant shall avoid injurious or vicious habits and shall
abstain from the use of controlled substances, alcohol,
dangerous drugs, inhalants and narcotics or habit forming
drugs without a doctor’s prescription.
14. Defendant shall perform 300 hours of Community Service
Restitution at a governmental, charitable, or non-profit
organization as assigned by the Community Supervision
Officer in charge of the case, at a rate of no less than 8
hours per week if employed and 24 hours per week if
unemployed, beginning within thirty (30) days of [February
27, 2007] and be responsible for any costs of supervision.
17. Defendant shall complete an anger management program as
approved by the Hood County Community Supervision and
Corrections Department in the county in which the defendant
resides.
Steen was arrested for violating the terms of his community supervision
after the results of an August 20, 2007 urinalysis indicated that he had used
marijuana. On September 10, 2007, the State filed a motion to adjudicate,
alleging the three following violations of Steen’s community supervision:
2
… See T EX. P ENAL C ODE A NN. § 25.05 (Vernon 2003).
2
A. ROBERT OLIN STEEN, Defendant, failed to avoid vicious or
injurious habits and on or about August 20, 2007, tested
positive for marihuana, a violation of condition number two
of this Court’s Order.
B. ROBERT OLIN STEEN, Defendant, failed to complete
Community Service Restitution at a rate of 8 hours if
employed and 24 hours if unemployed, for all of the weeks
of March 25, 2007 through August 6, 2007, a violation of
condition number fourteen of this Court’s Order.
C. ROBERT OLIN STEEN, Defendant, failed to attend and
complete the anger management program as directed by the
Community Supervision and Corrections Department, a
violation of condition number seventeen of this Court’s
Order.
On November 16, 2007, the trial court held a hearing on the State’s
motion to adjudicate. Steen entered a plea of “not true” to the allegations in
the State’s motion. Jennifer Davis, Steen’s community supervision officer,
testified that Steen tested positive for marijuana on June 29, 2007, and on
August 20, 2007. He served four days in jail for the June 29 violation. Steen
testified that he experienced severe back pain and required pain medication, but
the prescription pills compounded a liver condition, so he used marijuana in lieu
of the prescription pills. He further stated that he did not smoke marijuana after
the end of June 2007 and claimed that residue of the marijuana he smoked in
June remained in his body when he took the drug test in August.
3
Davis also testified that Steen had not completed his required community
service hours as directed. He only completed 21.5 hours between the weeks
of March 25, 2007 through August 6, 2007. Steen admitted that he had not
performed his community service hours as directed, but he also testified that
an unnamed community supervision official told him that he had five years to
complete his required hours.
Davis further testified that Steen did not complete the required anger
management course. Although Steen could not initially afford to enroll in the
course, his child support obligation was subsequently reduced in June 2007,
which allowed him to pay for the anger management course. Davis testified
that Steen enrolled in the course, but it was cancelled due to low enrollment.
She also testified that she told Steen that he had until October 2007 to
complete the course.
The trial court found all allegations in the State’s motion to adjudicate to
be true and sentenced Steen to twenty-four months in state jail. On December
12, 2007, Steen filed a notice of appeal.
III. Adjudication of Guilt Supported by the Record
In his sole point, Steen contends that the trial court abused its discretion
by adjudicating him guilty of the offense of criminal nonsupport because there
4
was legally insufficient evidence to support the allegations contained in the
State’s motion to proceed to adjudication.
Appellate review of the decision to adjudicate guilt is “in the same
manner” as review of the revocation of community supervision. T EX. C ODE
C RIM. P ROC. A NN. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2008). Appellate review of
a community supervision revocation is limited to determining whether the trial
court abused its discretion, and we examine the evidence in the light most
favorable to the trial court’s findings. See Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492,
493–94 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). The State must prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that appellant violated the conditions of his probation. Cobb v.
State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). The trial judge is the
sole trier of facts and determines the credibility of the witnesses and the weight
to be given to the testimony. See Lee v. State, 952 S.W.2d 894, 897 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 1997, no pet.).
Here, the evidence suggests that Steen tested positive for marijuana on
June 29, 2007, and admitted to using the drug during the month of June.
Steen served four days in jail following the June urinalysis, and the motion to
adjudicate did not mention the drug use during or prior to June 2007. He also
tested positive for marijuana on August 20, 2007, although he denied smoking
marijuana after June 2007. Appellant did not deny that the results of his
5
August 20, 2007 urinalysis were positive for marijuana. The positive urinalysis
adequately established by a preponderance of the evidence that Steen used
marijuana sometime between June 29, 2007, and August 20, 2007. See
Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 764 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (recognizing
that in a probation revocation hearing, the trial court could infer ultimate facts
from basic, proven facts).
We therefore hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by
finding that Steen violated the terms and conditions of his deferred adjudication
community supervision and by proceeding with an adjudication of guilt. See
Chavanna v. State, No. 02-07-00290-CR, 2008 WL 2553389, at *2–3 (Tex.
App.— Fort Worth June 26, 2008, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (not designated for
publication) (holding that evidence of a single instance of drug use is sufficient
to find that a condition of the appellant’s terms of community supervision was
violated). Because one sufficient ground for revocation supports the trial
court’s order revoking community supervision and proceeding to adjudication,
we need not address the remaining violations. Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d
924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980); see also T EX. R. A PP. P. 47.1.
Accordingly, we overrule Steen’s sole point.
6
IV. Conclusion
Having overruled Steen’s sole point, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
PER CURIAM
PANEL: MCCOY, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and LIVINGSTON, J.
DO NOT PUBLISH
T EX. R. A PP. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: August 7, 2008
7