Henderson, Leonard v. State ( 2000 )

NUMBER 13-99-502-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

___________________________________________________________________

LEONARD HENDERSON , Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 230th District Court

of Harris County, Texas.

___________________________________________________________________

O P I N I O N

Before Chief Justice Seerden and Justices Dorsey and Yañez

Opinion by Justice Dorsey

Appellant Leonard Henderson appeals from the revocation of his community supervision. A jury originally found him guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child and assessed his punishment at five years in prison with community supervision recommended. The trial court sentenced him to five years of community supervision. The State filed a motion to revoke, and after a hearing, the trial court revoked his community supervision and sentenced him to five years in prison. By his sole point of error appellant asserts that the trial court erred by revoking his community supervision. We affirm.

At a hearing to revoke community supervision the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that an accused violated the terms and conditions of probation. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). We apply an abuse of discretion standard, Jackson v. State, 645 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983), and review the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's order. Jones v. State, 589 S.W.2d 419, 421 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).

In the instant case appellant was placed on community supervision on August 28, 1996. On June 17, 1998, the conditions of his supervision were amended. Condition 13 as amended required appellant to "Submit to a Sex Offender Treatment OR CONTINUE TREATMENT BEGINNING 6/15/98." This condition also stated that if appellant was ordered to attend and participate in a treatment program he had to attend and participate in the treatment program until successfully completed or until further order of the court. The motion to revoke alleged in part that appellant had violated his community supervision by failing to attend and participate in a sex-offender treatment program on January 30, 1999.

During the hearing on the motion to revoke, appellant's probation officer testified that appellant was evaluated and ordered to attend sex-offender treatment sessions and that he was not supposed to miss the treatment sessions. Appellant was supposed to attend treatment at the Crismon clinic. However he failed to attend the treatment session on January 30, 1999 as required.

Appellant testified that he never missed any treatment sessions and that he went to all the treatment sessions that he was supposed to attend.

The treatment director at the Crismon clinic did not know of anyone at the clinic who had told appellant that he did not have to attend the treatment sessions. His testimony did not show that appellant had successfully completed his treatment or that the court had ordered him to stop treatment.

Based on the testimony the trial judge could conclude by the preponderance of the evidence that appellant violated the conditions of his community supervision by failing to submit to and participate in his sex-offender treatment program on January 30, 1999. As a result the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking community supervision. We overrule the point of error and affirm the judgment.

______________________________

J. BONNER DORSEY, Justice

Do not publish .

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).

Opinion delivered and filed

this 1st day of June, 2000.