COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-12-00199-CR
JEFFERY WAYNE JONES APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
----------
Upon his plea of guilty, Appellant Jeffery Wayne Jones was convicted of
possession of a controlled substance. The trial court sentenced him to eight
years’ confinement but suspended imposition of his sentence and placed him on
community supervision for four years. The conditions of supervision were
amended twice: once for an undisclosed reason and once after the State had
filed a motion to revoke, alleging that Appellant had committed a new drug
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
offense, had failed to pay fees, and had tested positive for a controlled
substance.
Subsequently, the State filed a second motion to revoke Appellant’s
community supervision, alleging that he had committed a new drug possession
offense. Testimony reflected that police found a baggie of marihuana six inches
from Appellant’s knee in a house that he was visiting when police conducted a
search of the house pursuant to a warrant. Appellant denied knowing anything
about the drugs or weapons that the police found throughout the house.
Essentially, the case turned on the trial court’s determination of Appellant’s
credibility and the trial court’s interpretation of undisputed facts. The trial court,
after hearing evidence and argument, granted the State’s motion to revoke
Appellant’s community supervision and imposed the eight-year sentence.
In one issue, Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by
revoking his community supervision and finding sufficient evidence that he had
committed a new offense and thus violated the conditions of his community
supervision. Because we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
We review an order revoking community supervision under an abuse of
discretion standard. 2 In a revocation proceeding, the State must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated the terms and
2
Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Cardona v.
State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).
2
conditions of community supervision. 3 The trial court is the sole judge of the
credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony, and we
review the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling. 4 If the
State fails to meet its burden of proof, the trial court abuses its discretion by
revoking the community supervision. 5
The State sustains its burden of proof in a community supervision
revocation if it proves the allegations in its motion to revoke by a preponderance
of the evidence. 6 Both Appellant and the defense witness who was also present
at the house denied that Appellant personally possessed the contraband in
question. The State points out, however, that Appellant admitted in his brief that
(1) he was present when the search was conducted; (2) the baggie of marihuana
was in plain view; (3) he was “about 6 inches” from the marihuana; (4) there was
an odor of marihuana; and (5) other contraband or drug paraphernalia was
present. Considering the record as a whole, we hold that there was evidence
from which the trial court could determine by a preponderance of the evidence
that Appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his community
supervision by committing a new offense, that is, possessing the baggie of
3
Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).
4
Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 493; Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex.
Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981).
5
Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 493–94.
6
Clay v. State, 361 S.W.3d 762, 765 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.).
3
marihuana that was found near his person. Accordingly, we hold that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion by granting the State’s motion to revoke.
We overrule Appellant’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
LEE ANN DAUPHINOT
JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: October 17, 2013
4