ARDRIAN LAVAR PATTERSON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRM and Opinion Filed March 20, 2007
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-06-00498-CR
............................
ARDRIAN LAVAR PATTERSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F04-50798-HV
.............................................................
OPINION
Before Justices Moseley, Bridges, and Richter
Opinion By Justice Richter
        Ardrian Lavar Patterson appeals from the revocation of his community supervision. In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his community supervision. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Procedural History
 
        Appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver cocaine in an amount of four grams or more, but less than 200 grams. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112(a), (d) (Vernon 2003). The trial court assessed punishment, enhanced by a prior felony conviction, at ten years' imprisonment, probated for ten years, and a $3000 fine. Subsequently, the State moved to revoke appellant's community supervision, alleging appellant violated the conditions of his community supervision. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court found the allegation true, revoked appellant's community supervision, and assessed punishment at ten years' imprisonment.
Applicable Law
 
        Appellate review of a probation revocation is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, and we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's findings. See Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493-94 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). The State must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, appellant violated the terms and conditions of his probation. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). In a revocation proceeding, the trial judge is the sole trier of the facts, and determines the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to the testimony. See Lee v. State, 952 S.W.2d 894, 897 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, no pet.) (en banc).
Discussion
 
        In its motions to revoke, the State alleged appellant violated the conditions of his community supervision by being unsuccessfully discharged from the “Cenikor Program.” During the revocation hearing, William Lane, the clinical manager for the Cenikor Foundation, testified appellant was unsuccessfully discharged after spending approximately sixteen months in the drug treatment program. Lane testified appellant was terminated from the program for several reasons, including: being terminated from three or four industry jobs, consistently having problems following instructions, having conflicts, and not taking responsibility for his actions. Lane testified that on the day appellant was terminated from the program, he confronted appellant about the contents of a bag appellant was carrying. Appellant said it contained his “personal belongings.” Lane looked inside the bag and saw a computer monitor. When Lane questioned appellant, appellant said his sister had given him the computer for Christmas. Lane called appellant's mother, who said neither she nor appellant sister had given appellant a computer. After Lane told appellant what his mother had said, appellant never mentioned the computer again and left the facility without it. Lane also testified appellant had some good qualities, he attended his individual and group therapy sessions, and he was responsive to suggestions as far as the drug rehabilitation portion of the program.
        Appellant testified he had a few problems while at Cenikor that was caused by his “mouth getting me into trouble.” Appellant offered explanations for why he was terminated from four jobs. On the first job, appellant pulled a muscle and had to have a hernia operation; on the second job, appellant got dust in his lungs from inhaling the grain dust and needed an asthma pump; on the third job, he made statements to a customer about the company he was working for; and on a landscaping job, he was accused of going in and out of an apartment and was terminated. Appellant testified that on the day he left Cenikor, a man named Robert Love knew he was leaving and gave him a bag that contained the computer. Appellant did not know where Love got the computer. When Lane asked appellant about the bag, appellant told Lane he just got the bag from Love.
        Appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his community supervision because he participated in the drug rehabilitation program and was terminated from Cenikor for reasons unrelated to drug treatment. The State responds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that appellant violated a condition of community supervision.
        Examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's findings, the evidence is sufficient to support revocation of appellant's community supervision. See Cobb, 851 S.W.2d at 874. Lane testified appellant was terminated from the program for several reasons, then gave specific examples. Appellant admitted he had a “few problems” at Cenikor, and explained why he was fired from four different jobs while in the program. The trial judge was free to believe or disbelieve any of the testimony. See Lee, 952 S.W.2d at 897.
        Because 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. See Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 493-94; Cobb, 851 S.W.2d at 874. We resolve appellant's issue against him.
        We affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
 
 
                                                          
                                                          MARTIN RICHTER
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
060498F.U05