ADRIAN COURTNEY HILLERY v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (2011)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Justice Lang–Miers

Adrian Courtney Hillery appeals from the adjudication of his guilt for three forgery offenses.   In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by failing to continue him on deferred community supervision.   We affirm the trial court's judgments.   The background of the cases 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 these cases is well settled.

Background

In these cases, appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to three forgery by check offenses.   See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.21(a), (d) (West 2011).   Pursuant to plea agreements, the trial court deferred adjudicating guilt, placed appellant on three years' community supervision, and assessed a $2,500 fine in each case.   The State later moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging appellant violated the conditions of his community supervision by having a positive urinalysis for marijuana, failing to report, failing to pay fines, fees, and restitution, consuming marijuana on several occasions, failing to complete Safe Neighborhood training, and failing to complete anti-theft class.   Appellant pleaded true to the allegations in a hearing on the motion.   Appellant's voluntary plea of true and stipulation of evidence was admitted into evidence.   Appellant testified he did not report because he “had a fear that when I went in I was going to get arrested.”   Appellant admitted he used marijuana while on community supervision.   He testified he did not pay the fees, fine, or restitution because he was legally blind, unemployed, and did not have the ability to pay.   The trial court found the allegations true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at nine months' confinement in state jail in each case.

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).

Discussion

Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by failing to continue him on community supervision because he was unable to pay the fees, fines, and restitution due to his being legally blind and unable to obtain steady employment.   Appellant asserts the State failed to prove his failure to pay the fees, fine, and restitution was intentional, and he failed to report only because he feared being arrested.   The State responds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to continue appellant on community supervision.

Appellant pleaded true to the allegations contained in the motions to adjudicate.   While appellant testified about his inability to pay the fees, fines, and restitution, he admitted he failed to report and consumed marijuana while on community supervision.   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).

We conclude the evidence is sufficient to show appellant violated a condition of his community supervision and, thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant's community supervision and adjudicating his guilt.   We resolve appellant's sole issue against him.

We affirm the trial court's judgments.

ELIZABETH LANG–MIERS JUSTICE