Martin De La Fuente v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 7, 2005
• Docket: 13-04-00189-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                              NUMBER 13-04-189-CR

                         COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI B EDINBURG

MARTIN DE LA FUENTE,                                                                 Appellant,

                                                             v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                                    Appellee.

    On appeal from the 319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

                       MEMORANDUM OPINION

                  Before Justices Yañez, Castillo, and Garza

                            Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza

Appellant challenges the trial court=s decision to revoke community supervision and impose a prison term of ten years.  Appellant=s sole issue complains that the trial court erred by admitting certain records into evidence because the State did not meet the business records exception to the hearsay rule.  See Tex. R. Evid. 803(6).  We conclude that appellant=s issue is without merit because it does not address all of the bases upon which the trial court could have properly reached its decision.  See Sterling v. State, 791 S.W.2d 274, 277 (Tex. App.CCorpus Christi 1990, pet. ref=d) (holding that appellant must challenge each basis upon which the trial court could have revoked community supervision).  In particular, appellant has not challenged the trial court=s finding that he violated the terms of his community supervision by failing to pay court costs, a fine, sex offender fee, and monthly supervision fee.  This finding was supported by evidence other than the records of which appellant now complains and is not disputed by appellant=s sole issue on appeal.  The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.  See Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (holding that one ground for revocation will support trial court=s order revoking supervision).    

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

Justice

Do not publish. 

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

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 7th day of July, 2005.