In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-18-00049-CR
JOE BRADLEY COCHRAN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 6th District Court
Lamar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 25539
Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Joe Bradley Cochran appeals the revocation of his deferred adjudication community
supervision for possession of less than one gram of methamphetamine. On appeal, Cochran argues
that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion to suppress evidence obtained from an
allegedly illegal search. We affirm the trial court’s judgment because (1) Cochran pled true to the
State’s allegation that he failed to perform community service restitution work as required by the
terms and conditions of his community supervision and (2) his motion to suppress was unrelated
to this allegation. 1
Cochran pled guilty to possession of less than one gram of methamphetamine. Pursuant to
the terms of his plea bargain agreement, the trial court placed Cochran on deferred adjudication
community supervision for five years, assessed a $1,000.00 fine, and ordered him to pay $140.00
in restitution. Among other things, the order placing Cochran on community supervision required
him to refrain from committing any violation of law or using alcohol or drugs not prescribed to
him. He was also mandated to “perform 400 hours of Community Service Restitution (CSR)
work . . . and abide by all rules of the CSR program.” The State filed a motion to proceed to an
adjudication of guilt, which alleged that Cochran had violated these terms by possessing
methamphetamine, amphetamine, marihuana, and Alprazolam and by failing to perform CSR.
The terms and conditions of Cochran’s community supervision required him to “[s]ubmit
to a search of [his] person, residence, or vehicle at any time by the CSO, or other law enforcement
1
In companion cause number 06-18-00048-CR, Cochran also appeals from his convictions on two counts of possession
of a controlled substance. We address Cochran’s arguments related to his suppression motion in that case.
2
official, for illegal drugs or contraband.” 2 The allegations in the State’s motion to adjudicate guilt
were largely the result of a search conducted on Cochran’s motel room by his CSO, which
uncovered illegal drugs. Cochran filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search on
grounds that the term and condition of Cochran’s community supervision that “authorized a search
of his ‘person, residence, or vehicle’ did not extend to a motel room” and, alternatively, that the
term was unconstitutional. After the trial court overruled Cochran’s motion to suppress, Cochran
pled guilty to all allegations in the State’s motion to adjudicate his guilt. The trial court adjudicated
Cochran’s guilt, sentenced him to twenty-two months’ confinement in state jail, and ordered him
to pay a $972.22 fine and $89.00 in restitution.
“An appeal from an order revoking [community supervision] is limited to the propriety of
the revocation.” Corley v. State, 782 S.W.2d 859, 861 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (en banc). We
review a trial court’s decision to revoke community supervision for an abuse of discretion. Little
v. State, 376 S.W.3d 217, 219 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, pet. ref’d) (citing Rickels v. State,
202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)); see In re T.R.S., 115 S.W.3d 318, 320 (Tex. App.—
Texarkana 2003, no pet.). In a revocation hearing, the trial court is the sole trier of the facts and
determines the credibility of the witnesses and the weight given to their testimony. T.R.S., 115
S.W.3d at 321. A trial court’s decision to revoke community supervision is examined in the light
most favorable to the trial court’s judgment. Id.
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.
2
Cochran was also required to permit his community supervision officer (CSO) “to visit [him] at home or elsewhere.”
3
App. 1993). Proof by a preponderance of the evidence as to any one of the alleged violations is
sufficient to support a trial court’s decision to revoke community supervision. Smith v. State, 286
S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App.
[Panel Op.] 1980). Thus, in order to prevail on appeal, Cochran must successfully challenge all
the findings that support the revocation order. See Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191, 193–94 (Tex.
Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
Here, Cochran pled true to failing to perform CSR. A plea of true, standing alone, is
sufficient to support revocation of community supervision. See Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127,
128 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). While his appellate brief focuses on his suppression
motion, that motion had no relevance with respect to the CSR allegation, and Cochran’s brief failed
to challenge this ground. When an appellant does not challenge every ground found true by the
trial court during revocation proceedings, “nothing is presented for review.” Moore, 605 S.W.2d
at 926.
Accordingly, after reviewing the record of the revocation proceedings, we hold that
Cochran has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his community
supervision based on the unchallenged ground that he failed to perform CSR as required. See id.
4
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Bailey C. Moseley
Justice
Date Submitted: October 11, 2018
Date Decided: October 31, 2018
Do Not Publish
5