Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 10, 2009.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-07-00923-CR
____________
ROBERT WESTER, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 262nd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1095973
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant Robert Wester appeals the trial court=s order adjudicating his guilt and sentencing him to one year=s confinement for the offense of injury to an elderly individual. In a single issue, appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in adjudicating and sentencing him for technical violations because he was not physically capable of fulfilling the terms and conditions of probation. We affirm.
Background
On December 11, 2006, appellant pleaded guilty to the offense of injury to an elderly individual, the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for three years. The terms and conditions of community supervision required appellant, among other things, to (1) avoid alcohol and illegal drugs, (2) remain in Harris County, (3) perform community service, (4) pay a supervision fee, fine, court costs, and lab fee, (5) obtain an offender identification card, (6) participate in anger management treatment, and (7) participate in a community-based program.
On March 7, 2007, the State filed a motion to adjudicate appellant=s guilt because he violated the above terms and conditions of community supervision. On October 17, 2007, appellant entered a plea of true to the State=s allegations and signed a stipulation of evidence admitting he had tested positive for cocaine and had violated the other listed conditions of community supervision. On that same day, the trial court held a hearing on the issue of punishment. At that hearing, appellant testified that he was placed on felony community supervision for injury to an elderly individual, that he reported to his community supervision officer three times, and that he tested positive for cocaine. He testified that he was incapable of paying fees, performing community service, obtaining an offender identification card, or completing anger management treatment because his vehicle was impounded when he was arrested on the original charges. He testified that health problems prevented him from keeping a job and earning money to pay for the vehicle=s release.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found the allegations in the motion to adjudicate were true and assessed punishment at one year=s confinement in a state jail facility.
Adjudication of Guilt
A. Jurisdiction
Article 42.12, Section 5(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was amended during the 2007 Legislative session to allow appeals from the decision to adjudicate guilt. Act of June 15, 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., ch. 1308, ' 5, 2007 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. ch. 1308. The amended statute took effect on June 15, 2007, and the new provision applies only to a hearing conducted on or after that date. Because appellant=s hearing was held on October 17, 2007, we have jurisdiction over this appeal.
B. Standard of Review
We review a trial court=s order revoking community supervision under an abuse of discretion standard. See Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Moore v. State, 11 S.W.3d 495, 498 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.). In conducting our review, we consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court=s finding to determine whether the trial court could have reasonably found that appellant violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision by a preponderance of the evidence. See Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763B64. The State satisfies its burden of proof when the greater weight of credible evidence before the court creates a reasonable belief that it is more probable that the defendant has violated a condition of community supervision. Id.; Joseph v. State, 3 S.W.3d 627, 640 (Tex. App.CHouston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.). Proof of any one of the alleged violations is sufficient to support a revocation of community supervision. Moore v. State, 11 S.W.3d at 498.
C. Analysis
Appellant argues that he was physically incapable of performing community service and participating in anger management treatment. He further contends that his financial circumstances prevented him from paying the appropriate fees. Appellant makes no argument, however, that his physical or financial hardships caused his positive drug test. Appellant admitted that he tested positive for cocaine in violation of the conditions of community supervision. That admission alone is sufficient to support the trial court=s decision to adjudicate guilt. Because appellant admitted to violating the condition that he avoid illegal drugs, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in adjudicating appellant=s guilt. Appellant=s sole issue is overruled.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
/s/ Leslie B. Yates
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Yates, Seymore, and Boyce.
Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).