Ramon Ibarra Quiroga v. State ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • Opinion filed August 31, 2015
    In The
    Eleventh Court of Appeals
    __________
    No. 11-13-00330-CR
    __________
    RAMON IBARRA QUIROGA, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 244th District Court
    Ector County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. C-35,207
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    This is an appeal from the revocation of Ramon Ibarra Quiroga’s community
    supervision in a possession-of-a-controlled-substance case. We affirm.
    The grand jury indicted Appellant for possession of a controlled substance,
    cocaine, in the amount of four grams or more but less than two hundred grams, with
    intent to deliver. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(a), (d) (West
    2010). Appellant pleaded guilty to the lesser included offense of possession of a
    controlled substance. See 
    id. The trial
    court convicted Appellant, assessed his
    punishment in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, suspended the
    imposition of the sentence, and placed Appellant on community supervision for a
    term of eight years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s
    community supervision and alleged that Appellant violated three terms of his
    community supervision. After a hearing, the trial court found the State’s allegations
    to be true. The trial court revoked Appellant’s community supervision and assessed
    his punishment at confinement for seven years.
    In a single issue, Appellant challenges the trial court’s revocation of his
    community supervision. Appellant challenges each of the violations alleged by the
    State. Specifically, Appellant contends that there was insufficient evidence to prove
    that he failed to report to county probation authorities on the alleged dates and that
    he failed to obtain permission to travel outside Ector County.
    We review a trial court’s decision to revoke community supervision under an
    abuse of discretion standard. Rickels v. State, 
    202 S.W.3d 759
    , 764 (Tex. Crim. App.
    2006); Cardona v. State, 
    665 S.W.2d 492
    , 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). The trial
    court is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given
    to their testimony. Garrett v. State, 
    619 S.W.2d 172
    , 174 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
    Op.] 1981). We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s
    ruling. 
    Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 493
    . We will uphold a trial court’s decision to
    revoke if any one of the alleged violations of the conditions of community
    supervision is supported by sufficient evidence. Moore v. State, 
    605 S.W.2d 924
    ,
    926 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980).
    The State met its burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence at least
    one of the alleged violations. The terms and conditions of Appellant’s community
    supervision required that Appellant obtain written consent of the court before
    2
    leaving Ector County. Appellant concedes that he traveled outside Ector County to
    El Paso, but he argues that there is insufficient evidence to show that he had not been
    given a three-month “blanket travel permit” that he often received because of his
    frequent travels for work and to visit his father.
    April Lollar, Appellant’s community supervision officer, testified that she was
    responsible for monitoring Appellant during his probationary period. Additionally,
    Lollar stated that Appellant was familiar with the process that he was required to go
    through in order to leave Ector County; Appellant had previously received several
    travel permits to leave Ector County. Lollar testified that Appellant was in El Paso
    without a travel permit or permission. Therefore, Appellant failed to adhere to the
    travel restrictions of his community supervision. Lollar’s testimony was sufficient
    for the trial court to find by a preponderance of the evidence that Appellant violated
    the travel restrictions that were set out in the terms and conditions of his community
    supervision. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked
    Appellant’s community supervision. We overrule Appellant’s sole issue on appeal.
    Because we will uphold a trial court’s decision to revoke if any one of the
    alleged violations of the conditions of community supervision is supported by
    sufficient evidence, we need not address whether there was sufficient evidence to
    prove that Appellant failed to report to his community supervision officer four times
    in 2012 and two times in 2013. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1; 
    Moore, 605 S.W.2d at 926
    .
    We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
    August 31, 2015                                             JIM R. WRIGHT
    Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).                CHIEF JUSTICE
    Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
    Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
    3