Corina Aguirre v. State

Opinion

Opinion filed December 14, 2006

Opinion filed December 14, 2006

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                   __________

                                                          No. 11-06-00090-CR

                                      CORINA AGUIRRE, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                        STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                        On Appeal from the 142nd District Court

                                                         Midland County, Texas

                                                 Trial Court Cause No. CR27325

                                                                   O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision.  The trial court originally convicted Corina Aguirre of forgery by passing and assessed her punishment at confinement for two years in a state jail facility and a $500 fine.  However, the imposition of the sentence was suspended, and appellant was placed on community supervision for six years.  After a hearing on the State=s motion to revoke, the trial court found that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of her community supervision, revoked her community supervision, and imposed  a sentence of confinement for eighteen months and a $500 fine. We affirm.

In her sole point of error, appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking her community supervision. Appellant argues that the trial court Areacted@ to a Anegative recommendation@ from the authority supervising her community supervision instead of giving her case a Afull and complete review.@

In a community supervision revocation hearing, the State has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a condition of community supervision has been violated.  Jenkins v. State, 740 S.W.2d 435 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983).  Proof of one violation of the terms and conditions of community supervision is sufficient to support the revocation.  McDonald v. State, 608 S.W.2d 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Taylor v. State, 604 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).  Appellate review of an order revoking community supervision is limited to the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion.  Flournoy v. State, 589 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).

One of the terms of her community supervision provided that appellant Ashall enroll in and successfully complete  Jefferson County Women=s Center, Beaumont, Texas, no less than three (3) months and no more than one (1) year.@  The State alleged that appellant failed to comply with this term because she was Aunsuccessfully discharged from the Jefferson County Women=s Center for failing to comply with said program=s rules and regulations.@ 

At the hearing, appellant=s community supervision officer testified that she had been notified  that appellant had not successfully completed the program.  The State introduced as State=s Exhibit No. 1 the report from the Jefferson County Community Supervision and Corrections Department Anegatively terminating@ appellant from the program and requesting that a warrant be issued for her arrest.  The report detailed appellant=s history with the program from her entry date of September 3, 2005, to the date of the January 11, 2006, report.  The report contained information that appellant had not paid fees and costs as ordered, had not maintained employment as required, had failed to follow orders and instructions of the program=s staff, had failed to take responsibility for her actions, had informed the supervisors that she needed surgery but had not provided any documentation, was Avery disruptive,@ and had several grievances filed against her by other residents in the program.

Appellant testified that she had had five different supervision officers, that she was not comfortable with the last officer (the one who testified at the hearing), that she had requested a change to a new officer, that the supervisors at the program would not take the residents to work, that she was forced to leave three of her jobs because of medical emergencies, and that she had performed more than the required hours of community service while she was in the program.  Appellant told the trial court that she would Aprefer to be reinstated@ on community supervision and allowed to work and live in Midland County.  She further stated that she had Aalways done@ what the trial court and her supervision officer had told her to do.

At a revocation hearing, the trial court is the trier of the facts and determines the weight and credibility of the testimony.  Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); Barnett v. State, 615 S.W.2d 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981).  The record before this court does not support appellant=s contentions that the trial court did not give her case a Afull and complete review@ or that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking her community supervision.  The point is overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

JIM R. WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE

December 14, 2006

Do not publish.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.