SCOTTY SHANE WILLIAMS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRMED as MODIFIED; Opinion Filed July 28, 2008.
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-07-01331-CR
............................
SCOTTY SHANE WILLIAMS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F03-73477-PR
.............................................................
OPINION
Before Justices Moseley, Francis, and Lang
Opinion By Justice Moseley
        Scotty Shane Williams appeals following the adjudication of his guilt for indecency with a child. In two issues, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his community supervision and the judgment should be modified to correctly reflect the offense for which he was convicted. We affirm the trial court's judgment as modified.
        Appellate review of a probation revocation 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). 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). 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 condition of his probation. See Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763-64. In a revocation proceeding, the trial judge is the sole trier of the facts, and determines the 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.).
        In its motion to adjudicate, the State alleged appellant violated nine conditions of community supervision. However, the State abandoned all but two of the allegations-failing to report and being unsuccessfully discharged from a drug treatment program. During a hearing on the motion, appellant pleaded true to the two remaining allegations in the State's motion to adjudicate. Appellant testified he was discharged from drug treatment in Tarrant County because he could not comply with their rules and regulations because he was physically ill and had been diagnosed with cancer. Appellant notified his probation officer that he was moving from Tarrant to Dallas County, but instead he moved to Collin County. Appellant could not remain in Collin County because the person he was going to live with was on parole, so appellant moved to Dallas County and registered as a sex offender in Dallas County. Appellant testified that although he failed to report for two months, he was in contact with a probation officer who was trying to determine where appellant needed to report. Appellant's signed plea of true and stipulation of evidence was admitted.
        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 admission that he failed to report is sufficient to support the trial court's judgment revoking community supervision. See Watts v. State, 645 S.W.2d 461, 463 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983); Lewis v. State, 195 S.W.3d 205, 209 (Tex. App.- San Antonio 2006, no pet.). We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant's community supervision. See Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763-64.
        The judgment recites the offense for which appellant was convicted is indecency “to” a child younger than seventeen years instead of indecency “with” a child younger than seventeen years. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11(a) (Vernon 2003). In his second issue, appellant argues the judgment adjudicating guilt should be modified to show the offense for which he was convicted is indecency with a child. The State agrees the judgment should be modified to show the correct offense.
         We sustain appellant's second issue. We modify the trial court's judgment adjudicating guilt to show the offense for which appellant was convicted is indecency with a child younger than seventeen years. 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.
 
 
 
                                                          
                                                          JIM MOSELEY
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
071331F.U05