Joice Marie Wilson v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 100th District Court of Childress County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-03-0298-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL C JUNE 2, 2004 ______________________________ JOICE MARIE W ILSON, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE _________________________________ FROM THE 100TH DISTRICT COURT OF CHILDRESS COUNTY; NO. 4141; HONORABLE DAVID M. MCCOY, JUDGE _______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and REAVIS, JJ. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Joice Marie W ilson was adjudicated guilty of possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to two years in a state jail facility, suspended for five years of com munity supervision. Upon the State s motion, the trial court revoked community supervision for violations of the conditions thereof and assessed the original sentence. Presenting two points of error, appellant challenges the order of revocation asserting abuse of discretion by the trial court in finding that she violated items 5 (failing to report) and 12 (failing to abstain from use of any controlled substance) because there was insufficient evidence. W e affirm. W hen reviewing an order revoking comm unity supervision, the sole question before this Court is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Cardona v. State, 665 S.W .2d 492, 493 (Tex.Cr.App. 1984); Jackson v. State, 645 S.W .2d 303, 305 (Tex.Cr.App. 1983). In a revocation proceeding the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the probationer violated a condition of community supervision as alleged in the motion to revoke. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W .2d 871, 874 (Tex.Cr.App. 1993). If the State fails to meet its burden of proof, the trial court abuses its discretion in revoking com munity supervision. Cardona, 665 S.W .2d at 494. In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a revocation, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. Jones v. State, 589 S.W .2d 419, 421 (Tex.Cr.App. 1979). W hen more than one violation of the conditions of community supervision is found by the trial court, the revocation order shall be affirmed if one sufficient ground supports the court's order. Moore v. State, 605 S.W .2d 924, 926 (Tex.Cr.App. 1980); Jones v. State, 571 S.W .2d 191, 193 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978); McCollum v. State, 784 S.W .2d 702, 704-05 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, pet. ref'd). In 1997, appellant was granted deferred adjudication for possession of a controlled substance and placed on community supervision for two years. In 2001, upon the State s motion to proceed, she was adjudicated guilty of possession, and was sentenced to two 2 years confinement, suspended for five years. On March 19, 2003, the State filed a motion to revoke com munity supervision alleging num erous violations of the conditions thereof. At a hearing on the State s motion, appellant plead not true to the allegations and evidence was presented. A community supervision officer conducting a courtesy supervision for persons outside the county testified that appellant signed a document in lieu of having a urinalysis admitting she used crack cocaine on January 27, 2003, and appellant testified at the revocation hearing that she used cocaine on January 27, 2003. Evidence was also presented that appellant failed to report by mail for the months of July, Novem ber, and December 2002. The trial court found that appellant had violated conditions 5 and 12 and im posed the original sentence of two years confinement in a state jail facility. Appellant s admission to using cocaine while on community supervision supports the trial court s revocation order. Moore, 605 S.W .2d at 926. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant s community supervision. Points of error one and two are overruled. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Don H. Reavis Justice Do not publish. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
