Robert Kennedy v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 204th District Court of Dallas County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-97-054-CR

ROBERT KENNEDY,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 204th District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court # F95-50522-SQ

O P I N I O N

Appellant Kennedy appeals from a judgment of the trial court revoking his probation and sentencing him to five years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division, and a $300 fine.

Appellant was convicted of attempted sexual assault in February 1996, and was sentenced to ten years in TDCJ-ID, probated.

The State filed an amended motion to revoke Appellant's probation on November 26, 1996. Appellant pled true to each alleged violation of the conditions of his probation. On December 13, 1996, the trial court revoked Appellant's probation and sentenced him to five years in prison and a $300 fine.

Appellant appeals on one point of error: "The trial imposed an unreasonable condition of probation."

Specifically, Appellant argues that the trial court's conditions of probation required Appellant to register as a sex offender with the Dallas Police Department's Crime Against Persons Division, and that this was an unreasonable requirement; that because of the stigma attached to being a sex offender, it prevented him from securing employment to get funds to comply with the financial obligations of his probation.

The State's amended motion to revoke alleged five violations of the terms and conditions of Appellant's probation:

1. Appellant did not report to his probation officer for October 1996;

2. Appellant failed to pay court costs and a fine and is delinquent $170;

3. Appellant failed to pay probation fees and is delinquent $95;

4. Appellant failed to pay restitution and is delinquent $40;

5. Appellant failed to successfully complete Sexual Abuse Clinical Assessment/ Treatment as directed.

In a probation revocation hearing the State's burden of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. Kulhanek v. State, 587 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).

The trial judge is the sole trier of facts, the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. Battle v. State, 571 S.W.2d 20, 21 (Tex. Crim. App.. 1978).

The findings, conclusions and orders of the trial judge should not be reversed unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown. Flournoy v. State, 589 S.W.2d 705, 708 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).

An appellate court will determine whether the trial court abused its discretion by examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's orders. Cordonau v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).

Proof of a single violation is sufficient to support the judgment of revocation. Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191, 193-94 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

Appellant pled true to all allegations of violation of the conditions of his probation. The evidence on trial was that all alleged violations of the conditions of his probation were true. There was no evidence to the contrary.

Appellant's point is overruled. The judgment is affirmed.

FRANK G. McDONALD

Chief Justice (Retired)

Before Chief Justice Davis,

Justice Cummings and

Chief Justice McDonald (Retired)

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed October 8, 1997

Do not publish