Corwin Armell Brown v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 26, 2004
• Docket: 13-03-00233-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-03-233-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

CORWIN ARMELL BROWN,                                                      Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                     Appellee.

On appeal from the 208th District Court of Harris County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez, and Garza

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza

Appellant, Corwin Armell Brown, pled guilty to assault of a family member and was given probation for eight years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke probation, alleging that appellant had violated several terms of his probation. Appellant pled “true” to one of the violations alleged by the State. The trial court found three of the violations alleged by the State to be “true,” revoked appellant’s probation, and sentenced him to imprisonment for eight years. Appellant now argues that his probation should not have been revoked because two of the three violations found by the trial court were not supported by the record. Because appellant does not challenge the third violation found by the trial court, we affirm the order of revocation.

Appellate review of an order revoking probation is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion. Flournoy v. State, 589 S.W.2d 705, 709 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).           In this case, the State alleged, among other things, that appellant violated the terms of his probation by failing to participate in a required domestic violence treatment program. The trial court found this allegation to be “true,” and appellant does not challenge this finding on appeal. Because a single violation is sufficient to support revocation, Martinez v. State, 6 S.W.3d 674, 681 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1999, no pet.); see Alexander v. State, 879 S.W.2d 338, 340 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, pet. ref’d), we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering revocation.

The trial court’s order is affirmed.      

                                                                                      _______________________

                                                                                      DORI CONTRERAS GARZA,

                                                                                      Justice

Do no publish.

Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b)

Memorandum Opinion delivered

and filed this the 26^th day of August, 2004.