Albert Randon v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 23rd District Court of Brazoria County

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-01-00184-CR
______________________________
ALBERT RANDON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 23rd Judicial District Court
Brazoria County, Texas
Trial Court No. 21,110
Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Albert Randon appeals the trial court's decision to revoke his community supervision and sentence of ten years' imprisonment. On appeal, Randon contends the evidence is factually insufficient to show he failed to pay his community supervision fee during the months of May and June 1998.

A. Factual And Procedural Background

On December 19, 1990, Randon pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) in an amount less than twenty-eight grams. The trial court placed Randon on community supervision for a period of ten years. On August 20, 1998, the State filed an application to revoke Randon's community supervision alleging that he failed to commit no new offense against the laws of Texas and that he failed to pay his community supervision fee in May and June of 1998 as previously directed by the trial court. Randon pled "not true" to the allegations.

The State's motion to revoke community supervision was considered simultaneously with both a motion to revoke Randon's community supervision in another felony drug case and a jury trial on the separate charge of aggravated sexual assault. During trial, Brooke Gabriles, Randon's community supervision officer, testified Randon did not pay his community supervision fee by the 19th day of May and June, 1998. Randon made a payment on June 29, 1998, to cover both the May and June obligations-but the payment was one month and ten days late for the May payment and ten days late for the June payment. Randon did not contest this testimony.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found true the allegations that Randon had committed a new criminal offense and that he had failed to timely pay his community supervision fees for the months of May and June of 1998. The trial court revoked Randon's community supervision and sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment.

B. Standard of Review

A trial court's decision to revoke a defendant's community supervision is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Wade v. State, 83 S.W.3d 835, 839 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2002, no pet.). A trial court cannot revoke community supervision without a showing the defendant violated a condition of his or her supervision. Id. When there is evidence the defendant violated a single term of his or her community supervision, the trial court does not abuse its discretion by revoking community supervision. Id. The test for abuse of discretion is not whether, in the opinion of the reviewing court, the facts present an appropriate case for the trial court's action; rather, it is a question of whether the court acted without reference to any guiding rules or principles, and the mere fact that a trial court may decide a matter within its discretionary authority differently than an appellate court does not demonstrate such an abuse. Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 391 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (Teague, J., dissenting).

C. Analysis

In his sole point of error, Randon contends the trial court erred by finding Randon failed to pay his community supervision fees by the 19th day of May and June, 1998, when the evidence showed he paid both fees by June 29, 1998.

Assuming, arguendo, we agreed with Randon that the evidence is insufficient to show he failed to pay his community supervision fees, there still remains the trial court's finding that Randon committed a new criminal offense. That latter finding (commission of a new criminal offense) is not challenged by Randon in this appeal. Proof of a single violation is sufficient to support a trial court's decision to revoke community supervision. Wade, 83 S.W.3d at 840. Accordingly, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion by revoking Randon's community supervision. See id. at 839. We overrule Randon's sole point of error and affirm the trial court's judgment.

 

Jack Carter

Justice

 

Date Submitted: February 21, 2003

Date Decided: March 10, 2003

 

Do Not Publish