Casey Joe Peel v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 35th District Court of Brown County

Opinion filed August 9, 2007

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals

____________

   No. 11-06-00006-CR

__________

CASEY JOE PEEL, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 35th District Court

Brown County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR17481

  O P I N I O N

Casey Joe Peel appeals from a judgment revoking his community supervision that he had received following his previous conviction for the offense of criminally negligent homicide. As a result of the revocation, Peel was sentenced to ten years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. The State presented twenty-one allegations that Peel violated the provisions of his community supervision. Finding eighteen of those allegations to be true, the trial court found that Peel violated conditions numbers one, two, three, six, eleven, twelve, eighteen, nineteen, and twenty-two of the conditions of his community supervision. Peel contends in five issues that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court=s findings that he had violated conditions one, three, eighteen, and nineteen of his community supervision. We affirm.

In a community supervision revocation hearing, the State has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a condition of community supervision has been violated. Jenkins v. State, 740 S.W.2d 435 (Tex. Crim. App.1983). Proof of one violation of the terms and conditions of community supervision is sufficient to support the revocation. McDonald v. State, 608 S.W.2d 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Taylorv. State, 604 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). The trial court is the trier of the facts and determines the weight and credibility of the testimony. Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); Barnett v. State, 615 S.W.2d 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). A plea of true alone is sufficient to support the trial court=s determination to revoke. Moses, 590 S.W.2d at 470; Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127 (Tex .Crim. App. 1979). Appellate review of an order revoking community supervision is limited to the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion. Flournoy v. State, 589 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).

Peel presents no challenge to the trial court=s findings that he violated condition numbers two, six, eleven, twelve, or twenty-two of the conditions of his community supervision. Because several of the trial court=s findings upon which Peel=s community supervision was revoked are unchallenged, even if Peel=s contentions were correct there would be no abuse of discretion. Gobell v. State, 528 S.W.2d 223, 224 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975). We overrule issues one, two, three, four, and five.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

August 9, 2007

Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: McCall, J.,

Strange, J., and Hill, J.[1]

[1]John G. Hill, Former Justice, Court of Appeals, 2nd District of Texas at Fort Worth sitting by assignment.