IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-06-00140-CV
Darrell Todd Gibson,
Appellant
v.
Alan Wood, II, Barbara E. Wood,
and Maureen Steiner,
Appellees
From the 170th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2005-3498-4
MEMORANDUM Opinion
The Clerk of this Court notified the parties that the appellant’s brief was overdue in this cause and that the appeal would be dismissed if an appropriate response was not filed within twenty-one days. Appellant has not filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3.
PER CURIAM
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
Appeal dismissed
Opinion delivered and filed November 29, 2006
[CV06]
State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The State has the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated the terms and conditions of community supervision. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). The trial court is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony, and we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).
In the motion to revoke, the State alleged that Holman violated the condition of his community supervision that he “commit no offense against the laws of this State or of any other State or of the United States.” The State specifically alleged that Holman was “convicted of the offense of Prohibited Weapons in Cause No. M200800517 in Johnson County” on or about March 10, 2009. At the hearing, the State admitted without objection Holman’s judgment of conviction in Cause No. M200800517 for the offense of possession of a prohibited weapon and also the indictment alleging that the offense occurred on or about March 11, 2008. Further, Holman testified at the hearing on the motion to revoke and admitted to his conviction for the offense of possession of a prohibited weapon.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Holman violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision. Because one ground for revocation, if proven, is sufficient to revoke a defendant's community supervision, we need not discuss Holman’s remaining complaints. Bersuch v. State, 304 S.W.3d 547, 548 (Tex. App.—Waco 2009, pet. ref’d). We overrule Holman’s sole issue on appeal.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
AL SCOGGINS
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed February 16, 2011
Do not publish
[CR25]