NO. 07-03-0528-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
JULY 8, 2004
______________________________
WILLIE SANDERS, JR.,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 50TH DISTRICT COURT OF COTTLE COUNTY;
NO. 2783; HON. DAVID HAJEK, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Memorandum Opinion
_______________________________
Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and REAVIS, JJ.
Appellant, Willie Sanders, Jr., appeals from a judgment revoking his community
supervision. Each issue asserted involves the sufficiency of the evidence underlying the
trial court’s conclusion that he violated the terms and conditions of his community
supervision. We affirm the judgment.
The State alleged in its motion to revoke that appellant violated, among others,
conditions 12, 13, 14, and 15 of his community supervision. Those conditions impose upon
him the obligation to pay (through the Cottle County Community Supervision and
Corrections Department) $140 in restitution, $310 in court costs, a fine of $2500, and $350
as reimbursement for the cost of legal counsel. Appellant was authorized to pay these
obligations through installments. However, according to the director of the Cottle County
Community Supervision and Corrections Department, who testified at the hearing, no
payments were received from appellant.
To successfully revoke one’s probation, the State must prove by a preponderance
of the evidence that appellant violated a condition of community supervision. Cobb v.
State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Furthermore, we view the evidence
in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. Jones v. State, 589 S.W.2d 419, 421
(Tex. Crim. App. 1979). And, most importantly, only one ground need be established to
warrant revocation. Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).
Upon construing it in a light most favorable to the judgment, we hold that the
testimony of the director of the Cottle County Community Supervision and Corrections
Department constitutes ample evidence upon which a factfinder could reasonably conclude,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that appellant violated at least four conditions of his
probation.1 Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the State’s motion
to revoke.
Accordingly, we overrule each issue and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Brian Quinn
Justice
Do not publish.
1
Appellant avers in his brief tha t the dire ctor’s testimony was hearsa y. But, he does not explain how
com me nts by the director regarding wh ether he had receive d the required paym ents from appellant fall with in
that category. Nor do we believe that they do so.
2