NUMBER 13-02-132-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
CARLOS KELLY, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 24th District Court of Refugio County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Castillo
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Yañez
Appellant, Carlos Kelly, appeals from the trial court’s revocation of his community supervision. On December 21, 1993, pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, appellant pleaded guilty to the offense of burglary of a building. He was sentenced to ten years imprisonment, suspended for ten years, and a $2500 fine,. On May 14, 2001, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s community supervision, alleging, among other violations, that appellant: (1) had been in possession of a controlled substance, and (2) had failed to satisfactorily complete 400 hours of court-ordered community service. Appellant pled “not true” to the State’s allegations. The court found these two allegations true and assessed punishment at five years imprisonment and a $2500 fine. In two issues, appellant challenges his revocation, contending: (1) the trial court erred in not granting his motion to suppress; and (2) the search of his home was unconstitutional, and the evidence seized pursuant to the search should have been suppressed.
Pursuant to this Court’s order dated May 6, 2004, the trial court has certified that “the defendant may appeal those matters that, under the law, he may appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). We affirm.
In a community supervision revocation hearing, the State need only prove its allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. Herrera v. State, 951 S.W.2d 197, 199 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1997, no pet.) (citing Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993)). This standard is met when the greater weight of the credible evidence creates a reasonable belief that the defendant violated a condition of probation as the State alleged. Johnson v. State, 943 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no pet.). Appellate review of an order revoking community supervision is limited to a determination of whether the court abused its discretion. Lanum v. State, 952 S.W.2d 36, 39 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.). The trial court does not abuse its discretion unless it “applie[s] an erroneous legal standard, or when no reasonable view of the record could support [its] conclusion under the correct law and the facts viewed in the light most favorable to its legal conclusion.” Dubose v. State, 915 S.W.2d 493, 497-98 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). A single violation of a probation condition is sufficient to support the trial court’s decision to revoke probation. Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Herrera, 951 S.W.2d at 199.In its motion for revocation, the State alleged, among other violations, that appellant violated a condition of his community supervision by failing to complete 400 hours of court-ordered community service on or before December 21, 1995. At the hearing, the probation officer testified that as of May 14, 2001, the date the revocation motion was filed, appellant had completed only 199.5 hours. Based on this uncontroverted testimony, the trial court found appellant violated this condition of his probation.
On appeal, appellant does not challenge the trial court’s finding that he violated the community service condition of his supervision. Accordingly, we must affirm the trial court’s judgment. See Sterling v. State, 791 S.W.2d 274, 276 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref’d) (defendant must successfully challenge each ground on which trial court relies, because one sufficient ground supports the trial court’s order). Because we have found at least one violation of appellant’s community supervision, we need not address appellant’s other issues. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
LINDA REYNA YAÑEZ
Justice
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this the
1st day of July, 2004.