Ronnie Darilyn Jones v. State ( 2006 )

Opinion filed November 30, 2006

Opinion filed November 30, 2006

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                 ____________

                                                          No. 11-05-00111-CR

                                                     __________

                                RONNIE DARILYN JONES, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                        STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                          On Appeal from the 70th District Court

                                                           Ector County, Texas

                                                 Trial Court Cause No. A-27,522

                                                                   O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision.  On March 30, 2000, Ronnie Darilyn Jones originally entered a plea of not guilty to the offense of possession of a controlled substance.  A jury found her guilty of the offense and assessed punishment at seven years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a fine of $7,000.  The sentence was suspended, and the trial court placed appellant on community supervision.  Later, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant=s community supervision.  At a hearing on that motion, appellant pleaded true to the allegation that she had used drugs, specifically cocaine, in violation of her probation.

On appeal, appellant complains that there was insufficient evidence to find that appellant violated her probation.  In a community supervision revocation hearing, the State has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a condition of community supervision has been violated.  Jenkins v. State, 740 S.W.2d 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983).  Proof of one violation of the terms and conditions of community supervision is sufficient to support the revocation.  McDonald v. State, 608 S.W.2d 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Taylor v. State, 604 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).  The trial court is the trier of the facts and determines the weight and credibility of the testimony.  Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); Barnett v. State, 615 S.W.2d 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981).  A plea of true alone is sufficient to support the trial court=s determination to revoke.  Moses, 590 S.W.2d at 469; Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).  Appellate review of an order revoking community supervision is limited to the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion.  Flournoy v. State, 589 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). 

Appellant=s community supervision officer, Laura Hall, testified that, when Hall informed appellant that she needed to take a urine test, appellant told Hall that she had been stressed the day before, went to a friend=s house, and snorted two to three lines of cocaine.  The trial court revoked her probation and imposed a sentence of three years in prison. Appellant pleaded true to the allegation that she had used cocaine during her probation and that she admitted to the community supervision officer that she had used cocaine.  That evidence is sufficient to support the judgment of the trial court.  We overrule appellant=s sole issue.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

JIM R. WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE

November 30, 2006

Do not publish.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J., and

McCall, J., and Strange, J.