Kendrick De Andre Howard v. State

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-17-00269-CR
KENDRICK DE ANDRE HOWARD,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 12th District Court
Walker County, Texas
Trial Court No. 27,802
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Kendrick Howard entered a plea of guilty to the offense of fraudulent use or
possession of identifying information. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 32.51 (West 2016). The
trial court deferred an adjudication of guilt and placed Howard on community
supervision for two years. On March 16, 2017, the State filed a motion to revoke
community supervision and adjudicate alleging Howard violated several of the terms
and conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Howard
violated Conditions 1 and 18 of his community supervision, adjudicated Howard guilty
of the offense of fraudulent use or possession of identifying information, and assessed
punishment at two years confinement in a state jail facility. We affirm.
In two issues on appeal, Howard argues that the trial court abused its discretion
in finding that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of true to the allegation
he violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision. The Court of
Criminal Appeals has held that the State must prove a violation of community
supervision by a preponderance of the evidence and that proof of any one of the alleged
violations is sufficient to uphold the trial court's decision to revoke community
supervision. Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (burden of proof
is by preponderance of the evidence); Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App.
1980) ("one sufficient ground for revocation will support the court's order to revoke
probation"). We review a trial court's decision to revoke community supervision under
an abuse of discretion standard. Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d at 493.
In the second issue, Howard argues that the trial court abused its discretion in
finding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a finding of true that he violated
Condition 18 of his community supervision. Condition 18 required Howard to perform
80 hours of community supervision at an organization or agency approved by the court
and designated by the supervision officer.
Howard’s supervision officer testified at the hearing that Howard only completed
1.5 hours of community supervision. The supervision officer testified that Howard
Howard v. State Page 2
reported performing 55 hours of community supervision, but those hours were not
verified by the community service coordinator. The coordinator called the
superintendent where Howard claimed to have performed the hours, and the
superintendent did not have Howard’s name in the community supervision book and
informed the coordinator that the signature on the card reporting the hours did not
appear to be his signature. Howard testified at the hearing that he did not lie when
reporting his community supervision hours and that there was confusion concerning his
hours. Howard did not testify, however, that he performed the 80 hours of community
service as required by his community supervision. The trial court is the sole judge of the
credibility of the witnesses and the weight given to their testimony at a hearing to revoke
community supervision and the evidence is reviewed in the light most favorable to the
trial court's ruling. Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d at 493; Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172,
174 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
revoking Howard’s community supervision. We overrule the second issue on appeal.
Because proof of any one of the alleged violations is sufficient to uphold the trial court's
decision to revoke community supervision, we need not address Howard’s first issue.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Howard v. State Page 3
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Senior Justice Scoggins1
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed February 13, 2019
Do not publish
[CR25]
1The Honorable Al Scoggins, Senior Justice of the Tenth Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the
Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 74.003, 75.002, 75.003 (West 2013).
Howard v. State Page 4