Jack Tine Winston v. State ( 2005 )

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-04-00094-CR

Jack Tine Winston,

                                                                      Appellant

 v.

The State of Texas,

                                                                      Appellee

From the 18th District Court

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court # F35785

MEMORANDUM Opinion

       Appellant appeals the revocation of his community supervision.  We will affirm.

       In Appellant’s sole issue, he contends that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking Appellant’s community supervision. The State’s motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision alleged that Appellant failed to report to his community supervision officer, failed to pay his community supervision fees, and failed to perform community service, all as ordered in the trial court’s community supervision order.[1]  The trial court found that Appellant violated the conditions of his community supervision as alleged in the motion.

       “Appellate review of an order revoking probation is limited to abuse of the trial court’s discretion.”  Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); accord Quisenberry v. State, 88 S.W.3d 745, 749 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, pet. ref’d); see DeGay v. State, 741 S.W.2d 445, 450 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987).  “Evidence which supports a finding that the appellant violated one condition of his probation is sufficient to sustain the order revoking probation.”  Richardson v. State, 622 S.W.2d 852, 855 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (op. on orig. submission); accord Maxey v. State, 49 S.W.3d 582, 584 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, pet. ref’d). 

       The trial court found that Appellant failed to report as ordered from February 2003, when Appellant was ordered to begin reporting, through June 2003, after which the State filed the motion to revoke. Appellant points to his testimony that he believed that his community supervision had been transferred from Johnson County, where he was convicted, to Tarrant County, and that he never received instructions from Tarrant County.  The State points to the following evidence.  In February 2003, Appellant contacted his Johnson County community supervision officer by telephone and requested that his supervision be transferred to Tarrant County.  The officer agreed to the transfer, and allowed Appellant to report in person in Johnson County later in the month.  Appellant failed to report.  Tarrant County accepted the transfer and directed Appellant to report in April. Appellant failed to report. Tarrant County again directed Appellant to report in May.  Appellant again failed to report.  Tarrant County then returned Appellant’s supervision to Johnson County.  After Appellant still failed to report in June, his Johnson County community supervision officer caused a motion to revoke to be filed.  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Appellant failed to report as ordered, and thus revoking Appellant’s community supervision.  We overrule Appellant’s issue.

       Having overruled Appellant’s issue, we affirm.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

          Justice Vance, and

          Justice Reyna

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed January 5, 2005

Do not publish

[CR25]

---

[1]  Although the State’s motion to revoke alleged only that Appellant failed to “[r]eport between the 1^st and 10^th day of each month,” in fact, the trial court had ordered that Appellant be “placed on Intensive Supervision,” including that Appellant “report weekly to the Supervision Officer” for the first 180 days of community supervision.