LAURIE ANN WATKINS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed January 29, 2007.
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-06-00330-CR
No. 05-06-00331-CR
............................
 
LAURIE ANN WATKINS, Appellant
 
V.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F99-35793-RV, F00-36157-LV
.............................................................
 
OPINION
 
Before Justices Whittington, Moseley, and O'Neill
Opinion By Justice Moseley
 
 
        Laurie Ann Watkins appeals from the revocation of her community supervision in each case. In two points of error, appellant contends the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court's finding that she violated a condition of community supervision. We affirm.
Procedural History
 
        In cause no. 05-06-00330-CR, appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to injury to a child younger than fourteen years. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.04(a) (Vernon Supp. 2006). The trial court deferred adjudicating guilt, placed appellant on three years' community supervision, and assessed a $500 fine. Subsequently, the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty and, pursuant to a plea agreement, assessed punishment at ten years' imprisonment, probated for ten years, and a $500 fine. In cause no. 05-06-00331-CR, appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to aggravated assault. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. §§ 22.01(a)(1), 22.02(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2006). Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court assessed punishment at ten years' imprisonment, probated for ten years, and a $2500 fine. In both cases, the State later moved to revoke appellant's community supervision, alleging appellant violated the conditions of community supervision by committing a new offense, failure to identify. After a hearing, the trial court found the allegation true, revoked appellant's community supervision, and assessed punishment at ten years' imprisonment in each case.
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 her 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, 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 community supervision, the State alleged appellant committed the new offense of failure to identify. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 38.02 (Vernon Supp. 2006). During the revocation hearing, Dallas police sergeant Bruce Bryant testified that at about 2:30 a.m. on July 4, 2003, he pulled over a vehicle for running a red light. Appellant was in the driver's seat. No one else was in the vehicle. Bryant asked appellant for her driver's license and proof of financial responsibility. Appellant said she did not have a driver's license, then told Bryant her name was “Jaqueline Brazil” and gave a date of birth. Appellant did not have proof of financial responsibility. Bryant checked the name and date of birth appellant gave him on his patrol car's computer. He discovered an outstanding warrant in Brazil's name. Bryant radioed for another officer and a wrecker for the vehicle. When the officer arrived, Bryant arrested appellant, placed her in the other officer's patrol car, then searched appellant's vehicle incident to the arrest. Bryant found a driver's license in the passenger compartment of the vehicle. The license had appellant's photograph on it and listed the name Laurie Watkins. Bryant went back to his patrol car and discovered an outstanding warrant in appellant's name for theft by check. After Bryant showed appellant the license, she admitted the name on the license was her true name. The other officer transported appellant to jail. Appellant's identity was confirmed through her fingerprints.
        Appellant testified that when Bryant asked her for a driver's license and insurance, she said she did not have the license with her. Appellant never told Bryant her name was Jaqueline Brazil and did not give Bryant a date of birth. Appellant admitted she was driving Brazil's car, but testified she was not alone. A female friend of Brazil's whose true name appellant did not know was also in the car at the time Bryant stopped the vehicle. When Bryant asked for insurance, appellant gave him the card she found in the glove compartment that listed Brazil's name. Bryant took the insurance card to his patrol car. When Bryant came back to the vehicle, he asked appellant if her name was Brazil. Appellant did not respond. Bryant then asked appellant to step outside the vehicle. Bryant searched the vehicle and found appellant's driver's license inside.
        Appellant argues the evidence shows Bryant mistakenly assumed appellant was the owner of the vehicle and the same person listed on the insurance card. Appellant asserts she never gave Bryant a fictitious name and actually failed to identify herself at all. The State responds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that appellant violated a condition of community supervision by failing to identify herself to a peace officer.
        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. Bryant testified appellant identified herself as Jaqueline Brazil and gave a date of birth. Bryant discovered Brazil had an outstanding warrant. After he arrested appellant, he searched the vehicle she was driving and found appellant's driver's license with her photograph and true name. Although appellant offered an explanation that she did not tell Bryant her name was Jaqueline Brazil and did not respond at all when Bryant asked if her name was Jaqueline Brazil, 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 her community supervision, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant's community supervision in each case. See Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 493-94; Cobb, 851 S.W.2d at 874. We overrule appellant's points of error.
        We affirm the trial court's judgment in each case.
 
 
                                                          
                                                          JIM MOSELEY
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
060330f.u05