In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-03-413 CR
____________________
JOHNNY DEWAYNE LOFTIN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 85324
Johnny Dewayne Loftin, appellant, pleaded guilty to felony theft, a state jail felony under section 31.03(e)(4) of the Texas Penal Code. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(4) (Vernon Supp. 2004). He received a two year sentence and was assessed a fine of $750. The trial court suspended imposition of the sentence and placed Loftin on community supervision for five years. The State filed a Motion to Revoke Community Supervision, and, at the hearing on that motion, Loftin pleaded "true" to two allegations of violations of his community supervision order: (1) that he failed to report to the Jefferson County Community Supervision Department as directed by the trial court and (2) that he was $735 in arrears on assessed fees. The trial court found those two allegations to be "true" and sentenced Loftin to eighteen months confinement in a state jail facility.
Loftin brings one issue on appeal. He maintains the trial court abused its discretion in punishing him more severely than was necessary for the offense. Loftin argues that the revocation of probation for the failure to pay fees is tantamount to imprisonment for debt in violation of the United States and Texas constitutions. Appellant cites no authority supporting this argument. He also contends that his failure to report to the Community Supervision Department from February 10, 2003 until the May 14, 2003, filing of the revocation motion is a "purely" administrative matter. According to Loftin, the punishment does not fit the crime as he was not charged with other violations and thus must have been obeying the remaining twenty four requirements for his probation. Loftin again cites no authority supporting this argument.
We review an order revoking community supervision under an abuse of discretion standard. Jackson v. State, 645 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). Proof by a preponderance of the evidence of any one of the alleged violations of the conditions of community supervision is sufficient to support a revocation order. See id; Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980).
Here, Loftin entered pleas of "true" to two violations and Loftin's sentence is within the statutory range. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.35 (Vernon 2003). The trial court did not abuse its discretion.
We affirm the judgment and sentence of the trial court.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on April 15, 2004
Opinion Delivered May 5, 2004
Do not publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Burgess, and Gaultney, JJ.