IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-05-00256-CR
Jason Corey York,
Appellant
v.
The State of Texas,
Appellee
From the 220th District Court
Bosque County, Texas
Trial Court No. 97-08-12099-BCCR
MEMORANDUM Opinion
York appeals the revocation of his community supervision for aggravated assault. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02(a) (Vernon Supp. 2006). We affirm.
In York’s first issue, he contends that his “right to due process of law was violated, where the court failed to recognize its authority to reduce [York]’s sentence.” (Br. at 2 (citing Stevens v. State, 900 S.W.2d 348 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1995, pet. ref’d).) York argues that the trial court was unaware of its power, on revocation of community supervision, to “reduce the term of confinement originally assessed to any term of confinement not less than the minimum prescribed for the offense of which the defendant was convicted.” See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 23(a) (Vernon Supp. 2006). We assume without deciding that York preserved his complaint. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a). In support, York points only to the trial court’s statement, “I am going to find the allegations are true, revoke your probation, sentence you back to T.D.C. for the balance of the sentence that was suspended by this court . . . .” (Br. at 4 (quoting R.R. 72).) York fails to establish that the trial court was unaware of its power. We overrule York’s first issue.
In York’s second issue, he contends that “[t]he evidence was insufficient to establish appellant committed a criminal offense while on supervision.” (Br. at 5.) “When an appellant does not challenge all of the grounds on which the trial court revokes community supervision, the court should be affirmed.” Graham v. State, No. 10-03-00231-CR, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 11704, at *1-*2 (Tex. App.—Waco Dec. 22, 2004, pet. dism’d & pet. ref’d, untimely filed) (not designated for publication) (mem. op.); see Elam v. State, No. 10-03-00204-CR, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 109, at *1, *3 (Tex. App.—Waco Jan. 5, 2005, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (mem. op.). The trial court revoked York’s community supervision on the five grounds alleged in the State’s motion to revoke, including, besides the commission of a criminal offense, the failure to pay community supervision fees, fines and restitution, and failure to complete community service. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 11(a)(1), (8), (10) (Vernon Supp. 2006). York complains of the evidence of only the first of those grounds. We overrule York’s second issue.
Having overruled York’s issues, we affirm.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed August 16, 2006
Do not publish
[CR25]