Damien Pruitt, Sr. v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 26, 2024
• Docket: 10-24-00016-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-24-00015-CR No. 10-24-00016-CR

DAMIEN PRUITT, SR., Appellant v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 85th District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 18-01286-CRF-85 and 20-01387-CRF-85

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Damien Pruitt, Sr. pled guilty to two separate charges of theft and was sentenced

to two years confinement in State Jail, probated for five years, in each case. The State filed

motions to revoke in both cases, and a hearing was held on both motions. After the

hearing, the trial court found that Pruitt violated many of the conditions of his

community supervision, revoked his community supervision, and sentenced Pruitt to two years in State Jail for each offense. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion

in revoking Pruitt’s community supervision, the trial court’s judgments are affirmed.

We review a decision to revoke community supervision for an abuse of discretion.

See Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860, 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d

759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The State's burden of proof in a revocation proceeding

is by a preponderance of the evidence. Hacker, 389 S.W.3d at 864-65; Cobb v. State, 851

S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Further, the violation of a single condition of

community supervision is sufficient to support a revocation. Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d

20, 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)

("We have long held that 'one sufficient ground for revocation would support the trial

court's order revoking' community supervision."). Thus, in order to prevail on appeal,

an appellant must successfully challenge all the findings that support the revocation

order. See Fenner v. State, 571 S.W.3d 892, 894 (Tex. App.—Waco 2019, pet. ref'd); Joseph

v. State, 3 S.W.3d 627, 640 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.).

The trial court found Pruitt violated Conditions 1, 4, 10, 25, and 64, and parts of

Conditions 11, 18, and 24 in trial court case number 18-01286-CRF-85, appellate case

number 10-24-00015-CR. The trial court also found that Pruitt violated Conditions 1, 4,

10, and 64 and parts of Conditions 11 and 18 in trial court case number 20-01387-CRF-85,

appellate case number 10-24-00016-CR. Pruitt only challenges the court’s finding of true

as to violating Condition 1 in each case, “[c]ommit no offense against the laws of this State

or of any other State or of the United States,” contending that the trial court erred in

considering testimony concerning surveillance video. He does not challenge the trial

Pruitt v. State Page 2 court’s finding of true to violating any other Condition. Accordingly, because Pruitt does

not challenge those findings, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking

Pruitt's community supervision.

Pruitt’s sole issue in each appeal is overruled. The trial court’s Judgment Revoking

Community Supervision in trial court case number 18-01286-CRF-85, signed on January

19, 2024, and the trial court’s Judgment Revoking Community Supervision in trial court

case number 20-01387-CRF-85, signed on January 19, 2024, are affirmed.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed September 26, 2024 Do not publish [CR25]

Pruitt v. State Page 3