In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-12-00054-CR
PAUL DEWAYNE CARTER, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court One
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 0972790D, Honorable Sharen Wilson, Presiding
August 23, 2013
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL AND PIRTLE, JJ.
In 2006, following an open plea of guilty to the offense of possession of a
controlled substance (cocaine) of more than 400 grams, 1 Appellant, Paul Dewayne
Carter, was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for a term of ten
years and assessed a fine of $1,000. On December 13, 2010, the trial court amended
the conditions of Appellant’s community supervision to include four days in county jail
1
See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 481.115(a) (West 2010). An offense under this statute is
punishable by imprisonment for life or for a term of not more than 99 years or less than 10 years, and a
fine not to exceed $100,000. See id. at § 481.115(f).
and psychological evaluation and treatment. On September 26, 2011, the State filed a
Petition to Proceed to Adjudication alleging multiple violations of the conditions of
Appellant’s community supervision, including (1) & (2) – two new criminal offenses on or
about September 14, 2011, (3) two positive drug tests on or about August 15, 2007 and
August 24, 2007, (4) three instances of diluting drug-testing specimens on October 24,
2007, March 9, 2010, and July 13, 2010, and (5) two failures to submit to drug testing as
directed on or about August 14, 2007 and August 23, 2007. After a hearing, the trial
court found Appellant violated paragraphs (1), (3), (4), and (5) of the State’s petition and
sentenced him to twelve years confinement. Presenting two points of error, Appellant
asserts the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his community supervision
because: (1) there was insufficient evidence he committed the new criminal offenses
and (2) the trial court had previously sanctioned him for the drug and drug-testing
violations when his conditions of community supervision were amended in 2010. We
affirm.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Our review of an order revoking community supervision is limited to determining
whether the trial court abused its discretion. Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763
(Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (citing Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex.Crim.App.
1984)). In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a revocation, we view
the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling; Jones v. State, 589
S.W.2d 419, 421 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979), while recognizing that “[t]he trial court is the
sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony.”
2
Antwine v. State, 268 S.W.3d 634, 636 (Tex.App.—Eastland 2008, pet. ref’d) (citing
Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d at 493).
ANALYSIS
At the outset we note that a finding of a single violation of community supervision
is sufficient to support revocation. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12, § 21(b)
(West 2012). See Antwine, 268 S.W.3d at 636 (citing Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924,
926 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980)). We consider Appellant’s second point of error first because
we find it dispositive of this appeal.
Appellant asserts the trial court had previously sanctioned him for the violations
alleged in paragraphs (3) through (5) of the State’s petition when the trial court
amended the terms and conditions of his community supervision in December 2010.
He contends that being sanctioned twice for the same violations violates his due
process rights. Appellant does not contend the violations did not occur.
In this case, the sole evidence at the adjudication hearing regarding the
amendment of the terms and conditions of community supervision in 2010 was the
testimony of Flor Benavides, a probation officer. Benavides testified the trial court
issued its order amending the terms and conditions of community supervision because
Appellant tested positive for drugs on November 8, 2010—a drug violation that was not
alleged in violations (3) through (5) of the State’s petition. See Applin v. State, 341
S.W.3d 528, 533 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2011, no pet.) (rejecting a double-jeopardy
claim when the record was void of specific fact findings as to why the trial court
previously modified community supervision to include jail time). Accordingly, we find no
3
merit in Appellant’s complaint that the trial court abused its discretion by improperly
considering the alleged violations in revoking his community supervision. Appellant’s
second point of error is overruled and his first point of error is pretermitted. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 47.1.
CONCLUSION
The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
Patrick A. Pirtle
Justice
Do not publish.
4