Message
×
loading..

Damien Pruitt, Sr. v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )


Menu:
  •                                    IN THE
    TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
    No. 10-24-00015-CR
    No. 10-24-00016-CR
    DAMIEN PRUITT, SR.,
    Appellant
    v.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,
    Appellee
    From the 85th District Court
    Brazos County, Texas
    Trial Court Nos. 18-01286-CRF-85
    and 20-01387-CRF-85
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Damien Pruitt, Sr. pled guilty to two separate charges of theft and was sentenced
    to two years confinement in State Jail, probated for five years, in each case. The State filed
    motions to revoke in both cases, and a hearing was held on both motions. After the
    hearing, the trial court found that Pruitt violated many of the conditions of his
    community supervision, revoked his community supervision, and sentenced Pruitt to
    two years in State Jail for each offense. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion
    in revoking Pruitt’s community supervision, the trial court’s judgments are affirmed.
    We review a decision to revoke community supervision for an abuse of discretion.
    See Hacker v. State, 
    389 S.W.3d 860
    , 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Rickels v. State, 
    202 S.W.3d 759
    , 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The State's burden of proof in a revocation proceeding
    is by a preponderance of the evidence. Hacker, 
    389 S.W.3d at 864-65
    ; Cobb v. State, 
    851 S.W.2d 871
    , 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Further, the violation of a single condition of
    community supervision is sufficient to support a revocation. Garcia v. State, 
    387 S.W.3d 20
    , 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Smith v. State, 
    286 S.W.3d 333
    , 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)
    ("We have long held that 'one sufficient ground for revocation would support the trial
    court's order revoking' community supervision."). Thus, in order to prevail on appeal,
    an appellant must successfully challenge all the findings that support the revocation
    order. See Fenner v. State, 
    571 S.W.3d 892
    , 894 (Tex. App.—Waco 2019, pet. ref'd); Joseph
    v. State, 
    3 S.W.3d 627
    , 640 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.).
    The trial court found Pruitt violated Conditions 1, 4, 10, 25, and 64, and parts of
    Conditions 11, 18, and 24 in trial court case number 18-01286-CRF-85, appellate case
    number 10-24-00015-CR. The trial court also found that Pruitt violated Conditions 1, 4,
    10, and 64 and parts of Conditions 11 and 18 in trial court case number 20-01387-CRF-85,
    appellate case number 10-24-00016-CR. Pruitt only challenges the court’s finding of true
    as to violating Condition 1 in each case, “[c]ommit no offense against the laws of this State
    or of any other State or of the United States,” contending that the trial court erred in
    considering testimony concerning surveillance video. He does not challenge the trial
    Pruitt v. State                                                                         Page 2
    court’s finding of true to violating any other Condition. Accordingly, because Pruitt does
    not challenge those findings, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking
    Pruitt's community supervision.
    Pruitt’s sole issue in each appeal is overruled. The trial court’s Judgment Revoking
    Community Supervision in trial court case number 18-01286-CRF-85, signed on January
    19, 2024, and the trial court’s Judgment Revoking Community Supervision in trial court
    case number 20-01387-CRF-85, signed on January 19, 2024, are affirmed.
    TOM GRAY
    Chief Justice
    Before Chief Justice Gray,
    Justice Johnson, and
    Justice Smith
    Affirmed
    Opinion delivered and filed September 26, 2024
    Do not publish
    [CR25]
    Pruitt v. State                                                                       Page 3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-24-00016-CR

Filed Date: 9/26/2024

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/27/2024