GREGORY LESTER SMITH, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Opinion By Justice Lang-Miers
Gregory Lester Smith appeals following the adjudication of his guilt for theft and failure to register as a sex offender. In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in proceeding with the adjudication of guilt in both cases. We affirm the trial court's judgments.
Appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to theft of property valued at $200,000 or more and failure to register as a sex offender. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(a), (e)(7) (Vernon Supp.2009); Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 62.102(a) (Vernon 2006). Pursuant to plea agreements, the trial court deferred adjudicating guilt, placed appellant on seven years' community supervision, and assessed fines of $3000 and $2000, respectively. The State later moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging appellant violated the conditions of his community supervision. Appellant pleaded true to the allegations in a hearing on the motions. The trial court found the allegations true, adjudicated appellant guilty in each case, and assessed punishment at five years' imprisonment for the theft conviction and two years' imprisonment for the failure to register conviction.
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 which 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.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).
Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in proceeding with the adjudication of guilt in each case because appellant had mental and financial issues. Appellant argues that because he was homeless and needed to move to Alabama to care for a sister and brother who had medical problems, the trial court should have continued his supervision. The State responds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in proceeding with adjudication of guilt in both cases.
At the hearing, appellant pleaded true to all of the allegations, including failing to report and failing to pay fees. A plea of true to any violation, standing alone, supports revocation of community supervision. See Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1979). The trial court heard testimony from appellant that he “wasn't thinking” and “was suicidal” while he was homeless, and he moved to Alabama because his sister needed help after having a stroke and his brother needed help after having a heart attack.
Because appellant entered pleas of true, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking his community supervision and adjudicating him guilty in each case. See Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763-64; Cole, 578 S.W.2d at 128. We resolve appellant's sole issue against him.
In each case, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS JUSTICE