TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-02-00170-CR
Ivery Jefferson, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF YOUNG COUNTY, 90TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 6888, HONORABLE STEPHEN O=NEAL CRAWFORD, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Ivery Jefferson appeals from the order revoking his community supervision. See
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, ' 21 (West Supp. 2003). The State=s motion to revoke alleged
several grounds on which appellant violated the terms and conditions of probation: (1) committing the
offense of tampering with a governmental record; (2) failing to report to the Community Supervision
Department on numerous report dates; (3) failing to pay court costs, all of the fine, probation fees, and
restitution. We will affirm the district court=s order.
The State=s burden of proof in a revocation hearing is by a preponderance of the evidence.
Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Willis v. State, 2 S.W.3d 397, 399 (Tex.
App.CAustin 1999, no pet.). Proof of any one of the alleged violations is sufficient to support the order
revoking probation. Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). An appellate court
views the evidence in a revocation proceeding in the light most favorable to the trial court=s ruling. Garrett
v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); Willis, 2 S.W.3d at 399. The only question in an
appeal from an order revoking probation is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Jackson v. State,
645 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983); Willis, 2 S.W.3d at 399.
In support of the State=s allegation that appellant failed to report, Terry Hawkins,
appellant=s community supervision officer, testified that appellant failed to report on nine report dates.
Hawkins said he asked appellant if Ahe had a legitimate excuse which we accept, hospital or being
incarcerated, and we would have given him credit for those months.@ At the hearing appellant argued that
he could not report because of injuries from an accident. He offered no evidence of any particular medical
problem preventing him from reporting for the specific report dates he missed. The evidence showed that
appellant operated several businesses, regularly drove a motor vehicle, and otherwise engaged in normal
activities. The State established this ground by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant=s probation. We affirm the district-court order.
Lee Yeakel, Justice
Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Yeakel
Affirmed
Filed: January 30, 2003
Do Not Publish
2