DRAJUAN JIMAY POTTS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRM as modified; Opinion issued September 14, 2010
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-10-00268-CR
............................
DRAJUAN JIMAY POTTS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court
Grayson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 055308
.............................................................
OPINION
Before Justices FitzGerald, Murphy, and Fillmore
Opinion By Justice FitzGerald
        Drajuan Jimay Potts appeals following the adjudication of his guilt for aggravated sexual assault of a child. In a single point of error, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by adjudicating his guilt. We modify and affirm the trial court's judgment.
Background
 
        Appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than fourteen years of age. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.021(a)(1)(B)(i) (West Supp. 2010). Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudicating guilt, placed appellant on ten years' community supervision, and assessed a $1500 fine. The State later moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging appellant violated thirteen conditions of his community supervision, including visiting an inmate who is a registered sex offender; failing to work at suitable employment; failing to notify probation of a change of address; failing to pay probation, attorney, sexual assault, and supervisory fees; failing to attend and successfully complete a life skills development seminar; failing to successfully complete the sex offender treatment program; and failing to submit to a polygraph test or provide a specimen for DNA and sexually transmitted disease (STD) tests. Appellant pleaded not true to the allegations in a hearing on the motion.
        The trial court heard testimony from Lacy Bambico, appellant's probation officer, who stated appellant moved on two occasions without notifying the proper authority prior to each move. According to Bambico, appellant was placed on probation on August 4, 2009. On August 8, 2009, appellant checked into a motel in Denison, registered the address with the sheriff's department, and left the motel one day later. Appellant served a fourteen-day jail term as a sanction for failing to report his change of address. In October 2009, when appellant was released from jail and continued on community supervision, he lived with a couple in Denison. Bambico conducted a home visit on December 29, 2009 and learned appellant had not been living at that home even though he had continually reported that home's address as his residence. Bambico testified appellant did not submit to the DNA or STD tests that are required by law, he did not pay all of the fees and costs, and he was unsuccessfully discharged from the sex offender treatment program. Appellant also visited another sex offender at the jail, although Bambico did not know if the inmate was convicted of a sex offense at the time appellant visited him. Appellant eventually took a polygraph test in December 2009, but he failed that test.
        Patti Andrews, a licensed counselor and sex offender treatment provider, told the trial court that appellant had been unsuccessfully discharged from treatment because he was disruptive and disrespectful to the group, and he denied and took no responsibility for committing the offense against the six-year-old daughter of handicapped parents. Andrews stated appellant told the group he was still around children, including his own two children.
        During appellant's testimony, he denied he knew that the friend he visited in the jail was a registered sex offender. Appellant told the trial court that Andrews discharged him from the sex offender treatment group because she did not want to help him, and he complained that Andrews “belittled him” while in the group sessions. Appellant claimed he worked as a day laborer with Labor Ready, and was also the groundskeeper for the people with whom he lived in Denison. He paid some of the fees and costs for tests and classes, but he did not have enough money to pay for all of them because he still needed to provide for his children. Appellant also said he registered his address with the sheriff's department, as required, even when he lived in Sherman with his girlfriend and children.
        The trial court found all of the allegations true, with the exception of failing to submit to a polygraph test. The trial court adjudicated appellant guilty and assessed punishment at twenty years' imprisonment.
Abuse of Discretion
 
        Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in proceeding with the adjudication of guilt because the evidence was insufficient to prove he visited an inmate who was a registered sex offender and insufficient to prove he was able to pay certain fees required before tests were performed or classes were attended. The State responds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in proceeding with adjudication of guilt.
        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, 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).
        The evidence presented shows appellant was unsuccessfully discharged from the sex offender treatment program. Andrews stated appellant refused to take responsibility for committing the offense and was disruptive and disrespectful to members of the group. The evidence also shows appellant failed to notify Bambico of his change of address prior to moving. Bambico stated that when she conducted a home visit to the address appellant had registered, she learned appellant had not been living there although he had continued registering that address. Although appellant denied he failed to notify Bambico of his change of address, 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); Lee v. State, 952 S.W.2d 894, 897 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, no pet.) (en banc).
        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 and adjudicating his guilt. See Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763-64; Sanchez, 603 S.W.2d at 871. We overrule appellant's sole point of error.
Modify Judgment
 
        We note the record shows the trial court did not orally pronounce a fine when it adjudicated appellant guilty and imposed the twenty-year sentence. The trial court's judgment, however, recites the fine as “$1500.” When a conflict exists between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. See Coffey v. State, 979 S.W.2d 326, 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Accordingly, we modify the trial court's judgment to delete the $1500 fine. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529-30 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd).
        As modified, we affirm the trial court's judgment adjudicating guilt.
 
 
                                                          
                                                          KERRY P. FITZGERALD
                                                          JUSTICE
 
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
100268F.U05