Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 29, 2004.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-03-00589-CR
____________
JOSE WILLIAM RIVAS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 268th District Court
Fort Bend County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 32,928
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant Jose William Rivas appeals from the trial court=s revocation of his probation. After entering a plea of guilty to the original charge of possession of a controlled substance on August 29, 2000, appellant was placed on probation for two years. On April 15, 2003, the trial court found that appellant violated the conditions of his probation by passing a forged Social Security card and failing to pay the probation supervision fee of forty dollars for the month of December 2002. Accordingly, the trial court sentenced appellant to one year of incarceration.
Appellant presents three issues for review in this appeal. He argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting into evidence (1) a copy of the allegedly forged Social Security card passed by appellant and (2) the original Social Security card appellant had in his possession at the revocation hearing. He also contends that (3) the State failed to prove that his non-payment of probation fees was intentional or willful. Because appellant=s third issue is dispositive of this appeal and clearly settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. We affirm.
In his third issue, appellant argues that the State failed to prove that his non-payment of probation fees was intentional or willful. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that Awhen inability to pay is not raised as an affirmative defense the State has discharged its burden [of proving failure to pay was intentional] without difficulty.@ See Stanfield v. State, 718 S.W.2d 734, 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). Because appellant did not raise the issue of inability to pay, we overrule appellant=s third issue. Since proof of a single violation is sufficient to support revocation, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant=s probation. See Greer v. State, 999 S.W.2d 484, 486 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref=d). Accordingly, we do not need to either address the other grounds supporting revocation or reach appellant=s other issues.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
/s/ Adele Hedges
Chief Justice
Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed June 29, 2004.
Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Frost and Guzman.
Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).