Roosevelt Linicomn v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 3rd District Court of Anderson County

NO. 12-01-00367-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

ROOSEVELT LINICOMN, JR.,

 
APPEAL FROM THE THIRD

APPELLANT

 

V.

 
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

 
ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXASPER CURIAM

Appellant Roosevelt Linicomn, Jr. pleaded guilty to the offense of Possession of a Controlled Substance of less than 28 grams on June 24, 1991, and the trial court assessed punishment at imprisonment for ten years, probated. On October 18, 2001, upon the timely motion of the State, the trial court revoked Appellant's probation and sentenced him to two years incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division. In his sole issue, Appellant complains that the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his probation. We affirm.

In a motion to revoke probation hearing, the decision whether to revoke rests within the discretion of the trial court. Barnett v. State, 615 S.W.2d 220, 222 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). Even so, this discretion is not absolute. Scamardo v. State, 517 S.W.2d 293, 297 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). The trial court is not authorized to revoke probation without a showing that the probationer has violated a condition of the probation imposed by the court. DeGay v. State, 741 S.W.2d 445, 449 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). The burden of proof in a probation revocation hearing is by a preponderance of the evidence. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). But an appellant's judicial admission of the violation of the terms of his probation is sufficient evidence to support the revocation of probation. Bush v. State, 506 S.W.2d 603, 605 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). Violation of a single condition of probation is sufficient to support revocation. Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). And when a motion alleges several violations of probation, the court's order revoking probation will be affirmed if the proof on any one of the allegations is sufficient. Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).

The State's motion to revoke probation alleged that Appellant had violated the following condition of his probation: "Commit no offense against the laws of this state or any other state or of the United States or of any governmental entity." It also alleged that Appellant had not reported to his probation officer as required. At the hearing, Appellant admitted that in 1996, he pleaded guilty to theft by check in Houston County. This judicial admission is factually sufficient to support the trial court's discretionary order revoking Appellant's probation. Accordingly, we overrule Appellant's sole issue.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

 

Opinion delivered July 31, 2002.

Panel consisted of Gohmert, Jr., C.J., Worthen, J., and Griffith, J.

 
(DO NOT PUBLISH)