KAMILAH JALEEN ROSS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRM as modified; Opinion issued April 28, 2008
 
S
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-07-01017-CR
No. 05-07-01018-CR
No. 05-07-01019-CR
No. 05-07-01112-CR
No. 05-07-01113-CR
No. 05-07-01114-CR
No. 05-07-01115-CR
............................
KAMILAH JALEEN ROSS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F05-01619-QN, F05-16066-LN, F06-24827-XN, F05-35016-SN,
F05-23685-KN, F05-23686-KN, and F05-23688-KN
 
.............................................................
OPINION
Before Justices Morris, Whittington, and O'Neill
Opinion By Justice Whittington
        Kamilah Jaleen Ross appeals from the revocation of her community supervision in six cases and a new conviction in one case. In five points of error, appellant challenges the judgments revoking her community supervision and asserts the judgment in cause no. 05-07-01018-CR should be modified to correctly reflect the fine assessed. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment in cause no. 05-07-01018-CR as modified, and we affirm the judgments in the remaining cases.
Probation Revocations
 
        In cause nos. 05-07-01017-CR, 05-07-01018-CR, 05-07-01112-CR, and 05-07-01113-CR appellant waived her right to a jury trial and pleaded guilty to forgery. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.21(b) (Vernon Supp. 2007). In cause nos. 05-07-01114-CR and 05-07-01115-CR, appellant waived her right to a jury trial and pleaded guilty to possession of fraudulent identification. See id. § 32.51(b). Pursuant to plea agreements, the trial judge assessed punishment at two years' confinement in a state jail facility, probated for five years, and a $500 fine in each case. The State later moved to revoke appellant's community supervision, alleging appellant violated the terms of her community supervision. The trial judge found the allegations true, revoked appellant's community supervision, and assessed punishment at twelve months' imprisonment in a state jail facility in each case.
        In her first point of error, appellant argues the trial judge abused his discretion in revoking her community supervision. In her third and fourth points of error, appellant argues the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support revocation based on her alleged failure to report to a treatment program.. The State responds the trial judge did not abuse his discretion because the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support all of the revocations.
        Appellate review of an order revoking probation is limited to determining whether the trial judge abused his discretion. See Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). In determining questions concerning sufficiency of the evidence in probation revocation cases, the burden of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. An order revoking probation must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the greater weight of the credible evidence which would create a reasonable belief that a defendant has violated a condtion of her probation. See id at 763-64.
        The State alleged appellant violated five conditions of community supervision, including committing a new possession of fraudulent identification offense, failing to report, failing to pay fines and fees, failing to report for treatment services program as directed, and failing to participate in the safe neighborhood training session as directed. During the revocation hearing, appellant pleaded true to all of the allegations in the motions to revoke. A plea of true, standing alone, supports revocation of community supervision. See Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). Appellant's signed judicial confessions and stipulations of evidence were admitted into evidence without objection. Moreover, appellant testified she rented a car using a stolen credit card she had obtained from her boyfriend in exchange for room and board, and she failed to report because she did not have the money to pay her fine and fees.
        Appellant's admissions she committed a new offense and failed to report, standing alone, are sufficient to support the trial court's judgments revoking community supervision. See Watts v. State, 645 S.W.2d 461, 463 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1983); Lewis v. State, 195 S.W.3d 205, 209 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2006, no pet.). We conclude the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in revoking appellant's community supervision in each case. See Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763-64. We overrule appellant's first, third, and fourth points of error.
        In appellant's second point of error, she contends the trial judge abused his discretion in revoking her community supervision without specifying the grounds for revocation. The judgment recites the trial judge found appellant violated her community supervision “as set out in the State's motion to revoke community supervision.” Copies of the motions to revoke are attached to each judgment specifying the grounds for revocation. We overrule appellant's second point of error.
 
New Offense
 
        In cause no. 05-07-01019-CR, the new offense, appellant waived her right to a jury trial and entered a guilty plea to the charges in the indictment. The trial judge assessed punishment at twenty months' confinement in a state jail facility and a $2500 fine. Although appellant included this case in her brief, all her complaints concern the revocations in the other six cases. Because she does not raise any issues challenging this conviction, we affirm the trial court's judgment in cause no. 05-07- 01019-CR.
 
Modify Judgment
 
        In her fifth point of error, appellant asks this Court to modify the trial court's judgment in cause no. 05-07-01018-CR to show the fine imposed was $500. The State agrees the trial court's judgment should be modified to correctly reflect the fine that was originally imposed.
        The trial judge imposed a $500 fine when appellant was placed on community supervision. The judgment revoking community supervision recites the fine is $1500. Thus, the judgment is incorrect. We sustain appellant's fifth point of error. We modify the trial court's judgment revoking community supervision to show the fine is $500. 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).
Conclusion
 
        In cause nos. 05-07-01017-CR, 05-07-01019-CR, 05-07-01112-CR, 05-07-01113-CR, 05-07- 01114-CR, and 05-07-01115-CR, we affirm the trial court's judgments.
        In cause no. 05-07-01018-CR, we modify the judgment to show the fine is $500 and, as modified, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
                                                          
                                                          MARK WHITTINGTON
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
071017F.U05