LINH PHUONG NGUYEN v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (2011)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Justice FitzGerald

Linh Phuong Nguyen appeals the revocation of her community supervision.   In a single issue, appellant contends the State failed to prove she was the same person who was convicted of the offense and placed on community supervision.   We affirm.   The background of the case and the evidence admitted at trial are well known to the parties, and we therefore limit recitation of the facts.   We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.4 because the law to be applied in the case is well settled.

Background

Appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine in an amount of less than one gram.   See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(a), (b) (West Supp.2010).   After finding appellant guilty, the trial court assessed punishment at two years' confinement in state jail, probated for five years.   The State later moved to revoke appellant's community supervision, alleging three violations:  (1) committed new offense of failure to identify, (2) failed to report for the Comprehensive Assessment and Treatment Services (CATS) program as directed, and (3) failed to refrain from consuming alcohol.   In a hearing on the motion, appellant pleaded not true to the allegations.   The trial court heard testimony from P.F. Chilcoat, Kenneth Traylor, and Dan Jones.   Chilcoat, a Garland police officer, testified that after being dispatched to a gas station parking lot regarding a fight in progress, he arrested appellant for public intoxication.   Appellant identified herself as “Thuy Ngoc Nguyen,” and wrote that name on a piece of paper for the officer.   When Chilcoat transported appellant to the jail, one of the jailers said Thuy Ngoc Nguyen was not appellant's true name.   Chilcoat checked the police database and located appellant's picture and true name.   He then arrested appellant for failure to identify.

Community supervision officer Kenneth Traylor, who is assigned to the 204th Judicial District Court, testified probation records indicate appellant was placed on community supervision on December 22, 2009 for the offense of possession of cocaine.   The conditions of community supervision were delivered to appellant by Jones, and appellant's signature appears on the forms.   Traylor initiated a motion to revoke after he learned appellant had been arrested for failure to identify, had consumed alcohol, and had failed to report to the CATS program.

Jones testified he is a community supervision officer assigned to the 204th Judicial District Court.   On December 22, 2009, Jones conducted a post-sentence interview with appellant, then served her with the conditions of community supervision.   Jones testified he explained the conditions to appellant, and he had no reason to believe appellant did not understand his explanation.

The trial court took judicial notice of letters written by appellant to the court, found the allegations true, and granted the state's motion.   The trial court revoked appellant's community supervision and assessed punishment at eighteen months' confinement in state jail.

Applicable Law

Appellate review of an order revoking community supervision is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion.   See Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex.Crim.App.2006).   An order revoking community supervision must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the greater weight of the credible evidence that would create a reasonable belief that the defendant has violated a condition of probation.   Id. at 763–64.   A finding of a single violation of community supervision is sufficient to support revocation.   See Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1980).   Thus, in order to prevail, appellant 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).

Discussion

Appellant contends the state failed to prove she was the same person who was convicted of possession of cocaine and placed on community supervision.   Appellant asserts that because none of the state's witnesses were present at the plea hearing and Jones had no contact with appellant until after the sentencing hearing, the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict.   The State responds that the record includes sufficient evidence to show appellant violated the terms of her community supervision.

Officer Chilcoat testified he arrested appellant for public intoxication and later also charged her with failure to identify after he learned she gave him a false name.   Officer Traylor said appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offense of possession of cocaine on December 22, 2009.   He identified appellant as the person who was placed on community supervision at that time.   And, Officer Jones testified he conducted a post-sentence interview with appellant on December 22, 2009 and served her with the conditions of community supervision on that same date.   The trial court's role, as the fact finder in this case, was to reconcile any conflicts in the evidence and judge the witnesses' credibility.   See Swearingen v. State, 101 S.W.3d 89, 97 (Tex.Crim.App.2003);  Lee v. State, 952 S.W.2d 894, 897 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1997, no pet.) (en banc).

Because the evidence is sufficient to prove appellant's identity and that she violated the conditions of her community supervision, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant's community supervision.   See Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763–64;  Sanchez, 603 S.W.2d at 871.   We resolve appellant's sole issue against her.

We affirm the trial court's judgment revoking community supervision.

KERRY P. FITZGERALD JUSTICE