COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-16-00403-CR
ANGELICA RENEE GRAY APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 1091484D
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
In a single point, Appellant Angelica Renee Gray complains that the trial
court abused its discretion by revoking her community supervision. We affirm the
trial court’s judgment.
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
On February 18, 2009, Appellant pleaded guilty to the second-degree
felony offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and the trial court
placed her on six years’ deferred adjudication community supervision. The trial
court extended Appellant’s community supervision for one year in 2015 and for
another year in 2016.
On May 24, 2016, the State filed a petition to proceed to adjudication,
alleging that Appellant had violated her community supervision conditions by
committing the new offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, by
possessing a firearm away from her home, and by illegally using a controlled
substance, namely marijuana. Appellant pleaded not true to the aggravated
assault and possession allegations, but she pleaded true to the controlled
substance allegation. The trial court found true the State’s possession and
controlled-substance allegations, adjudicated Appellant guilty of aggravated
assault with a deadly weapon, and sentenced her to 12 years’ confinement.
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, Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]
2
1981), and we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s
ruling. Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 493.
In her sole point, Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion
by revoking her community supervision because the evidence was insufficient to
show that Appellant possessed a firearm away from her residence. However, we
need not resolve that question because Appellant pleaded true to the State’s
allegation that she illegally used a controlled substance.
Proof of a single violation of community supervision conditions is sufficient
to support an order revoking community supervision. See Garcia v. State, 387
S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (citing Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924,
926 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980)). And a plea of true to any one allegation
of a violation of a condition of community supervision, standing alone, is sufficient
to support a finding that that community supervision condition has been violated.
Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). Since
Appellant pleaded true to the controlled substance allegation, the trial court did
not abuse its discretion by revoking her community supervision. We overrule
Appellant’s sole point.
Having overruled Appellant’s sole point, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
/s/ Bonnie Sudderth
BONNIE SUDDERTH
JUSTICE
3
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; WALKER and SUDDERTH, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: July 27, 2017
4