NUMBER 13-10-00640-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
TAMMY LINDSEY, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 319th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez
Appellant Tammy Lindsey complains of the revocation of her deferred-adjudication
community supervision, upon which she was sentenced to twenty years' incarceration.
By one issue, Lindsey argues that the evidence supporting the revocation of her
community supervision was insufficient. We affirm.
I. Background1
Lindsey was indicted in 2007 for second-degree felony aggravated assault. See
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2), (b) (West Supp. 2010). In March 2008, Lindsey
pleaded guilty to the offense, and pursuant to a plea bargain with the State, the trial court
deferred Lindsey's adjudication and placed her on community supervision for a term of
eight years. In September 2010, the State moved to revoke Lindsey's community
supervision and adjudicate guilt. In its motion to revoke, the State alleged that Lindsey
committed nine violations of the terms of her community supervision, including
committing the offenses of aggravated assault and resisting arrest, testing positive for
cocaine, consuming alcohol, failing to pay required court costs and other fees, and
violating her court-imposed curfew. At the revocation hearing, Lindsey pleaded true to
seven of the nine violations. After hearing the State's evidence, the trial court found that
Lindsey violated the terms of her community supervision as alleged in the State's motion,
revoked Lindsey's community supervision, adjudicated her guilt, and sentenced her to
twenty years' incarceration. This appeal followed.
II. Discussion
By her sole issue on appeal, Lindsey argues that the evidence supporting the
revocation of her community supervision was insufficient. Lindsey challenges the trial
court's findings only as to the aggravated assault and resisting arrest grounds for
revocation.
1
Because this is a memorandum opinion and the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not
recite them here except as necessary to advise the parties of the Court's decision and the basic reasons for
it. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
2
We review a trial court's order revoking community supervision for an abuse of
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)). The State bears the
burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed a
violation of his community supervision conditions. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873
(Tex. Crim. App. 1993). If the State does not meet its burden of proof, the trial court
abuses its discretion in revoking the community supervision. Cardona, 665 S.W.2d
493-94.
Proof by a preponderance of the evidence of any one of the alleged violations of
the community supervision conditions is sufficient to support a revocation order.
Antwine v. State, 268 S.W.3d 634, 636 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2008, pet. ref'd) (citations
omitted). In fact, a plea of true, standing alone, supports the revocation of community
supervision. See Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (holding a
plea of true to one allegation is sufficient to support revocation of probation); see also
Grover v. State, No. 13-09-00102-CR, 2009 WL 3247843, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus
Christi July 2, 2009, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Thus, to
obtain reversal of a revocation order, the appellant must successfully challenge each
ground on which the trial court relied to support revocation. Sterling v. State, 791 S.W.2d
274, 277 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref'd) (citing Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d
924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Grim v. State, 656 S.W.2d 542, 543 (Tex. App.—Corpus
Christi 1983, no pet.)).
Here, Lindsey pleaded true to seven of the nine alleged violations of her
community supervision. On appeal, she challenges only those two grounds to which she
3
did not plead true—committing the offenses of aggravated assault and resisting arrest.
Therefore, even if we assume the evidence was insufficient to support the aggravated
assault and resisting arrest grounds, the trial court's revocation order was supported by
her plea of true to the remaining seven grounds. We, therefore, cannot conclude that the
trial court abused its discretion in ordering revocation. See Cardona, 665 S.W.2d
493-94; Sterling, 791 S.W.2d at 277. Lindsey's issue is overruled.
III. CONCLUSION
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the 31st
day of August, 2011.
4