Eric Jimenez v. State

Opinion Issued October 25, 2007 Opinion Issued October 25, 2007 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-06-01101-CR ERIC JIMENEZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 180th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1037860 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Eric Jimenez appeals the trial court’s judgment revoking his community supervision. In one issue, Jimenez contends the trial court abused its discretion in admitting hearsay testimony at the hearing on the State’s motion to revoke community supervision. The State responds that the trial court properly admitted the testimony, or alternatively, that the trial court’s judgment should not be reversed because Jimenez failed to challenge the evidence supporting all the grounds for revocation. We conclude that Jimenez has failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation. We therefore affirm. Background In March 2006, Jimenez pleaded guilty to the third-degree felony offense of engaging in organized criminal activity. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 71.02(a)(1), (b) (Vernon Supp. 2006). The trial court assessed punishment at five years’ confinement, but suspended the sentence and placed Jimenez on community supervision for five years. The trial court also ordered Jimenez to pay $7,433 in restitution. In September 2006, the State moved to revoke Jimenez’s community supervision, alleging that Jimenez had (1) committed the offense of possession of cocaine, (2) failed to perform community service at the rate ordered by the trial court, (3) failed to pay supervision fees, (4) failed to pay a fine and court costs, (5) failed to pay a laboratory processing fee, (6) failed to pay an identification card fee, (7) failed to pay restitution, (8) failed to pay a court-ordered amount to Crime Stoppers of Houston, and (9) failed to pay an assessment. Jimenez pleaded true to allegations (2) through (9), but pleaded not true to allegation (1). The trial court held a hearing and found all the allegations in the State’s motion to be true. The trial court revoked Jimenez’s community supervision and assessed punishment at five years’ confinement. Jimenez now appeals. Standard of Review A revocation proceeding is neither a criminal nor a civil trial, but rather an administrative hearing. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Canseco v. State, 199 S.W.3d 437, 438 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d); Greer v. State, 999 S.W.2d 484, 486 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref’d). At a revocation hearing, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has violated a condition of his community supervision. Cobb, 851 S.W.2d at 873; Canseco, 199 S.W.3d at 438–39; Greer, 999 S.W.2d at 486. Proof of a single violation is sufficient to support a revocation. Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Canseco, 199 S.W.3d at 439; Greer, 999 S.W.2d at 486. The trial court’s judgment should be affirmed if the appellant does not challenge all of the grounds on which the trial court revoked community supervision. See Baxter v. State, 936 S.W.2d 469, 472 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996), pet. dism'd as improvidently granted, 960 S.W.2d 82 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). A plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support the trial court’s judgment of revocation. Moses, 590 S.W.2d at 470; Hays v. State, 933 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Jimenez only challenges the admission of an officer’s hearsay testimony that, among other evidence, supports the State’s allegation that Jimenez possessed cocaine. Jimenez pleaded true to the other eight allegations asserted in the State’s motion for revocation and he does not challenge these grounds on appeal. See Moses, 590 S.W.2d at 470; Hays, 933 S.W.2d at 661. The record also contains sufficient evidence, outside the complained-of hearsay, to support these eight grounds. Because any single unchallenged ground will support revocation, we hold that Jimenez has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his community supervision. See Moses, 590 S.W.2d at 470; Canseco, 199 S.W.3d at 439; Greer, 999 S.W.2d at 486; Baxter, 936 S.W.2d at 472. Conclusion We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Jimenez’s community supervision. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Jane Bland Justice Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Alcala and Bland.