Richard Douglas McCutcheon v. the State of Texas

AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed October 20, 2021
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-20-00701-CR
RICHARD DOUGLAS MCCUTCHEON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-1571547-I
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Schenck, Smith, and Garcia
Opinion by Justice Smith
Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Richard Douglas McCutcheon
pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography, a third degree felony. The trial
court found the evidence supported the plea, deferred adjudication, and placed
appellant on community supervision. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to
adjudicate guilt and revoke community supervision based on violation of seven
conditions. Appellant pleaded true and made a judicial confession to violation of all
seven conditions. The trial court found appellant violated all seven conditions,
adjudicated guilt, and sentenced appellant to eight years in prison. In five issues,
appellant alleges the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his community
supervision for failing to (1) avoid persons of disreputable or harmful character, (2)
pay supervision fees as directed, (3) complete community service hours, (4) pay a
sex offender fee of $5.00 per month to the sex offender fund, and (5) comply with
all directives and instructions provided by the registered sex offenders treatment
provider or its staff. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
We review an order revoking community supervision for an abuse of
discretion. Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). A single
violation of a probation condition is sufficient to support a trial court’s decision
revoking probation. See Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).
A plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support revocation of community
supervision. See Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]
1979); see also Foley v. State, No. 05-18-01268-CR, 2020 WL 2745250, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Dallas May 27, 2020, pet. ref’d). Thus, in order to prevail on appeal, the
defendant must successfully challenge all of the findings that support the revocation
order. Silber v. State, 371 S.W.3d 605, 611 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012,
no pet.).
The record shows that appellant pleaded true to violating seven conditions of
his community supervision: (c), (j), (l), (u), (w), (x), and (aa). His plea, standing
alone, is sufficient to support revocation of community supervision. See Garcia,
387 S.W.3d at 26; Cole, 578 S.W.2d at 128. Moreover, because appellant has not
challenged each violation supporting the trial court’s decision to revoke community
–2–
supervision and adjudicate guilt, we must affirm the trial court’s judgment.1 See
Olabode v. State, 575 S.W.3d 878, 880–81 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2019, pet. ref’d); see
also Phillips v. State, No. 05-16-00850-CR, 2017 WL 2875522, at *2 (Tex. App.—
Dallas July 6, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). We overrule
appellant’s five issues and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/Craig Smith/
CRAIG SMITH
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
200701F.U05
1
Appellant did not challenge conditions (u) and (aa) relating to viewing and possessing pornography.
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
RICHARD DOUGLAS On Appeal from the Criminal District
MCCUTCHEON, Appellant Court No. 2, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-1571547-I.
No. 05-20-00701-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Smith.
Justices Schenck and Garcia
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered October 20, 2021
–4–