WILLIAM LONELL PITTMAN v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.

WILLIAM LONELL PITTMAN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

No. 05-10-00663-CR

Decided: February 23, 2011

Before Justices Morris, Francis, and Murphy

OPINION

Opinion By Justice Morris

In these appeals, William Lonell Pittman challenges his convictions for evading arrest and burglary of a building.   In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by adjudicating his guilt and revoking his community supervision.   We affirm the trial court's judgments.

Factual Background

In cause number 05-10-00663-CR, appellant waived a jury, pleaded guilty to evading arrest or detention while using a motor vehicle, and pleaded true to three enhancement paragraphs.   The trial court deferred adjudicating guilt, placed appellant on ten years' community supervision, and assessed a $1,500 fine.   In cause number 05-10-00664-CR, appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to burglary of a building.   The trial court assessed punishment at two years' confinement in a state jail facility, probated for five years, and a $750 fine.   The State later moved to adjudicate guilt in the first case and revoke appellant's community supervision in the second case, alleging appellant violated the terms of his community supervision.   The State's allegations included failing to report and failing to pay costs and fees.

At a hearing on the motions, Juan Morales, a probation officer, stated appellant failed to report for eighteen months and he was delinquent in paying court costs, fines, and fees.   Morales stated the probation department tried to locate appellant at his home “numerous times,” but they were unsuccessful, and appellant never contacted the probation department about any extenuating circumstances justifying his failure to report.

Appellant admitted he did not report to the probation department for eighteen months, but claimed he was not aware he was in violation of his probation during that time because he “wasn't stable.”   Appellant said he was shot in the arm on July 15, 2008 and went to the hospital.   Two days later, he went home to live with his mother.   His mother took appellant to Metro Care, where he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and given medication.   Appellant testified he did not work, but he did apply for social security disability payments.   Appellant said he stayed in the house every day except to receive medical care or attend church.   The trial court found the allegations true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and revoked appellant's community supervision.

Discussion

Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in proceeding with the adjudication of guilt in one case and revoking his probation in another case because the State failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he violated the terms of his community supervision.   Appellant asserts that, because he was unable to work due to his mental illness and he “lost his mind and memory” after being shot in the arm, he should have been continued on community supervision with monitoring.

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, 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).

The evidence presented shows appellant failed to report for eighteen months.   Although appellant testified that he was hampered in his efforts due to his gunshot wound and subsequent mental illness, it was the trial court's role, as the fact finder in this case, 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).

We conclude the evidence is sufficient to prove appellant violated a condition of his community supervision.   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.

JOSEPH B. MORRIS JUSTICE

Copied to clipboard