COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-10-00478-CR
KENNETH DAVID FISHER, JR. APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant Kenneth David Fisher, Jr. appeals the trial court’s judgment
adjudicating guilt and revoking Appellant’s deferred adjudication community
supervision. We affirm.
Appellant pleaded guilty to fraudulent use or possession of identifying
information, and the trial court placed him on three years’ deferred adjudication
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
community supervision, the terms of which included committing no new offenses,
regularly reporting to his community supervision officer, paying fees, and getting
permission from the trial court or his community supervision officer before leaving
the county.
The State filed a petition to adjudicate, alleging that Appellant had illegally
possessed a controlled substance, failed to report to his community supervision
officer, neglected to pay community supervision fees, and left the county without
permission from his supervision officer or the court.
At the hearing on the State’s petition, Appellant pleaded “not true” to the
allegations that he had illegally possessed drugs and failed to report, but “true”
that he had failed to pay fees and left the county without permission. The trial
court found these four allegations true, adjudicated Appellant’s guilt, revoked his
community supervision, and sentenced him to eight years’ confinement.
On appeal, Appellant claims that the trial court erred by sustaining a
hearsay objection and excluding a pharmacy record showing that his sister had a
prescription for the type of drugs he was found to have illegally possessed in
violation of one of the terms of his community supervision.
We review an order revoking community supervision under an abuse of
discretion standard. 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). In a
revocation proceeding, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that the defendant violated the terms and conditions of community supervision.
2
Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). 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. Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 493; Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172,
174 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981). If the State fails to meet its burden of
proof, the trial court abuses its discretion in revoking community supervision.
Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 493-94. Proof by a preponderance of the evidence of
any one of the alleged violations of the conditions of community supervision is
sufficient to support a revocation order. Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926
(Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980); Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869, 871
(Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980). A plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to
support the revocation of community supervision. Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d
127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979); Clapper v. State, 562 S.W.2d 250,
250 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Alexander v. State, No. 02-10-00500-
CR, 2011 WL 3546625, at *1 (Tex. App.––Fort Worth Aug. 11, 2011, no pet.)
(mem. op., not designated for publication).
Appellant pleaded true to violating two conditions of his community
supervision––failing to pay fees and leaving the county without permission.
Because the trial court may revoke community supervision for a single violation,
and Appellant’s plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient, it was not necessary for
the State to prove additional violations. See Moore, 605 S.W.2d at 926; Cole,
578 S.W.2d at 128. Therefore, we hold that it was within the trial court’s
3
discretion to adjudicate Appellant guilty and revoke his deferred adjudication
community supervision. Accordingly, we overrule Appellant’s sole issue and
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
LEE GABRIEL
JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; MEIER and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: October 13, 2011
4