Description: Appellant, James Henry Johnson, was placed on community supervision in May
of 2016, for a period of ten years for the offenses of aggravated assault of a public servant
with a deadly weapon (count 1) and evading arrest with a motor vehicle (count 2).
Appellant’s terms and conditions of community supervision required him to reside at the
33rd and 424th Judicial District Intermediate Sanction Facility (ISF) for a term of not less
than 180 days and no more than twenty-four months, and to abide by the rules and
regulations of the facility. On September 22, 2016, the State filed its motion to revoke
appellant’s community supervision alleging he failed to reside at the ISF, failed to abide
by the facility’s rules and regulations, and had absconded from the ISF. Finding the
allegations true, the trial court revoked the order suspending imposition of sentence and
imposed the original sentence of ten years confinement.1 Appellant’s sole issue is
whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his community supervision. We
will affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Standard of Review
Our review of an order revoking community supervision is limited to determining
whether the trial court abused its discretion. Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2006) (citing Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)
(en banc)). In a revocation hearing, the State must prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that the defendant violated the terms of community supervision. Id. at 763-64.
A preponderance of the evidence means “that greater weight of the credible evidence
which would create a reasonable belief that the defendant has violated a condition of his
probation.” Id. When the standard of review is abuse of discretion, the record must simply
contain some credible evidence to support the decision made by the trial court. Herald v.
State, 67 S.W.3d 292, 293 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, no pet.). Finally, we note that a
single violation of the terms of probation is sufficient to support revocation. Sibler v. State,
371 S.W.3d 605, 611 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.).
At the revocation hearing, community supervision officer Conley testified that he
discussed the terms and conditions of community supervision with appellant, including
the condition that appellant was required to complete the ISF program offered by the 33rd
and 424th Judicial District. According to Conley, appellant did not complete his term at
the ISF because he absconded on September 18 after he was transported to his work
location. Appellant did not contact Conley for permission to leave the facility, and no one
sought a furlough from Conley. Approximately two weeks after he left the ISF, appellant
was arrested in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Appellant testified that he sought a furlough because his fiancée was having heart
transplant surgery in Oklahoma City. After his request for furlough was denied, he
arranged to leave work with a co-worker who drove him to the hospital in Oklahoma City.
Appellant admitted “what I did was wrong. I know I shouldn’t have left the program.”
Appellant did not contact the ISF between the time he left and his subsequent arrest.
Outcome: Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking appellant’s community supervision. Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.