Denmark, Rodney Earl v. State ( 2013 )

AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed January 18, 2013.
In i’he
Qtottrt of ppa1
fuftj 3itrirt of t1t1cxa at atta
No. 1)5-1 1-01571-CR
ROL)NEY EAR!, I)ENMARK, Appellant
‘7.
TIlE STATE OF TEXAS, Appelice
On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F07-40442-W
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Bridges and Myers
Opinion by Chief Justice Wright
Rodney Earl Denmark was convicted, following adjudication of his guilt, of aggravated
robbery with a deadly weapon. in seven issues, appellant contends the trial court abused its
discretion by revoking his community supervision and adjudicating his guilt. We affirm the trial
court’s judgment. The background of the case and the evidence admitted at trial are well known
to the parties, and we therefore limit recitation of the facts. We issue this memorandum opinion
pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47,4 because the law to be applied in the case is
well settled.
Appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon,
a brick. Set’ Tix. Pt’c.L (‘ni F ANN. 29.03(a) (West 21)11). Ihe tnal court deterred
adjudicating guilt, placed appellant on five years’ community supervision, and assessed a $750
fine. In its second—mended motion to adjudicate, the State alleged appellant violated thirteen
conditions of community supervision, including being unsuccessfully discharged from the
Intensive Outpatient Treatment Program. Appellant pleaded not true to the allegations during a
hearing. After hearing evidence, the trial court fiund the allegations true, adjudicated appellant
guilty, and assessed punishment at fbrty years’ imprisonment.
Appellate review of an order revoking community supervision is limited to determining
whether the trial court abused its discretion. See Ricke/s i’. 5taie. 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2006). An order revoking community supervision must be supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, meaning the greater weight of the credible evidence that would
create a reasonable belief that the defendant has violated a condition of probation. Id. at 763--64.
A finding of a single violation of commurnty supervision is sufficient to support revocation. See
Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tcx. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980). Thus, to prevail on
appeal, appellant must successfully challenge all of the findings that support the revocation
order. See Jones v. Stale, 571 S.W.2d 191, l93--94 (Tex. C’rim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion because the evidence is
insufficient to show he violated any of the terms of his community supervision. The State
responds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant’s community
supervision and adjudicating his guilt because proof of one violation is sufficient to support
revocation. We agree with the State.
-2-
Probation officer Michelle 1-lamaker testified appellant was delinquent on paying fees and
restitution; appellant had not performed any community service hours; and appellant was
unsuccessfully discharged from the Intensive Outpatient Treatment Program due to his continued
drug use and attendance problems. Flamaker testified she was aware appellant did not have a job
when he was placed on community supervision, and she and appellant had discussed addressing
his community service hours after focusing on the intensive treatment program. Hamaker
testified that at one point, appellant told her he had another source of income; appellant said he
was “dealing cocaine.” During his testimony, appellant said he attempted to attend an outpatient
treatment program. but he was not successful because he had “marijuana in my system and [1]
was discharged.”
We conclude the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that appellant
violated community supervision by being unsuccessfully discharged from the Intensive
Treatment Outpatient Program. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking
appellant’s community supervision and adjudicating his guilt. See Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763;
Sanchez, 603 S.W.2d at 871. We resolve appellant’s first issue against him. Because proof of
one violation is sufficient to support revocation, we do not address appellant’s remaining
complaints. See Sanchez, 603 S.W.2d at 871.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment
Do Not Publish
TEx. it An. P.47
11 l57lF.UO5
—3-
Qtourt øf tppeaI
jFiftIj iOttrttt ot IIxa at aUa
JUDGMENT
RODNEY EARL DENMARK, Appellant Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District
Court of Dallas County. Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
No. 05-1 1-01571-CR F07-40442-W).
Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Bridges and Myers participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered .January 18, 2013.
7
JUSTICE