Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 1, 2005.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
_______________
NO. 14-04-00408-CR
NO. 14-04-00409-CR
_______________
RECTOR LAWRENCE HARRIS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 183rd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 825,487 & 825,488
_________________________________________________________
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Rector Lawrence Harris appeals the revocation of his post-conviction community supervision[1] on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court=s findings that he violated the conditions of his probation by failing to obtain suitable employment and by committing an offense. We affirm.
An order revoking community supervision is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493‑94 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). The trial court abuses its discretion in revoking community supervision if the State fails to meet its burden of proof. Id. A violation of a condition of community supervision need only be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Where multiple violations are alleged, proof of one will support revocation. Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191, 193-94 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
In this case, because the evidence of the finding challenged in appellant=s second point of error is sufficient, we need only address that point of error. It pertains to the condition requiring that he commit no offense against the laws of any state. The State alleged that Appellant participated in a theft of merchandise from a store. The evidence was undisputed that the stolen merchandise was carried out of the store by a person whom appellant had helped select merchandise in the store and in a bag containing other merchandise that appellant had purchased from the store. A store security employee testified, among other things, that while looking through a store window from the outside, he had seen appellant in the store removing theft detection sensors from DVDs and placing them in the bag with his other purchases, in which the stolen merchandise was recovered.
To refute this evidence, appellant relies on two defense exhibit photographs showing an area inside the store. Appellant contends that: (1) the witness testified that the photos accurately depicted his line of sight of appellant; and (2) from the photos, it is apparent that appellant=s hands would not have been visible to the witness from where he was located outside the window, relative to appellant=s location inside. However, although the witness testified that the photos accurately depicted the way the store Alooked,@ appellant has not cited (and we have not found) any testimony that the photos represented the witness=s line of sight. Nor is it apparent from the explanation in appellant=s brief, or otherwise from the photos or testimony cited by appellant, how it would have been physically impossible for the witness to see what he claimed to observe. Under these circumstances, appellant=s second issue fails to demonstrate that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court=s finding of a violation of the conditions of his probation. Accordingly, it is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
/s/ Richard H. Edelman
Justice
Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed November 1, 2005.
Panel consists of Justices Edelman, Seymore, and Guzman.
Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
[1] Appellant=s two convictions were both for injury to a disabled individual. After granting the State=s motions to revoke his community supervision for both convictions, the trial court sentenced appellant to four years and eighteen months confinement for each of the two offenses.