COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-10-00305-CR
LAMONTE K. BROWN APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Appellant Lamonte K. Brown appeals from his adjudication of guilt for
delivery of more than four but less than two hundred grams of a controlled
substance. We will affirm.
Brown pleaded guilty to delivery of a controlled substance in 2001, and the
trial court placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision. In July
2010, the State filed its third petition to proceed to adjudication, alleging that
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Brown had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision by
(1) failing to pay fees, (2) failing to complete community service hours, and
(3) failing to attend substance abuse counseling. At a hearing on the State’s
petition, the State waived the fees allegation, and Brown pleaded true to the
allegations that he had failed to complete community service hours and had
failed to attend substance abuse counseling. The trial court adjudicated Brown
guilty and sentenced him to five years’ confinement.
In his only point, Brown argues that the trial court abused its discretion by
adjudicating his guilt ―in light of overwhelming evidence that [he] had a viable
explanation as to why he failed to complete his community service hours and
failed to complete required substance abuse counseling‖—he had two serious
back injuries and two jobs, and he missed counseling meetings because they
conflicted with his employment.
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.
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,
2
174 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981). 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).
Brown pleaded true to two of the State’s allegations, and he admitted at
the hearing on the State’s petition that he had only completed thirty-three out of
the 320 hours of community supervision that he had been ordered to participate
in and to complete. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion by adjudicating Brown guilty of the underlying offense. See Moses v.
State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979); Cole, 578
S.W.2d at 128; Ramos v. State, No. 02-08-00363-CR, 2009 WL 1035120, at *1–
2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 16, 2009, pet. struck) (mem. op., not designated
for publication) (holding that appellant’s plea of true to probation violation
allegation was sufficient to support revocation notwithstanding his explanation for
the violation—a lack of transportation). We overrule Brown’s sole point and
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
BILL MEIER
JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; MEIER and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: May 26, 2011
3