Njeri Jamyce Harper v. State ( 2011 )

Opinion issued June 2, 2011

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

————————————

NO. 01-10-00696-CR

———————————

Njeri Jamyce Harper, Appellant

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1160537

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Njeri Jamyce Harper, was charged by indictment with fraudulent use or possession of identifying information in May 2008.[1]  According to the terms of a plea bargain, she pleaded guilty and the trial court deferred adjudication of her guilt, placing her on community supervision for two years. On May 19, 2010, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, asserting appellant had violated the terms of her community supervision by (1) committing criminal mischief by damaging a motor vehicle;[2] (2) committing criminal mischief by damaging a digital camera; and (3) failing to present written verification of employment for six months.  Appellant pleaded not true.  At the hearing, the trial court revoked the community supervision, adjudicated her guilt, and assessed punishment at confinement for one year and $100 fine. 

In one issue, appellant argues the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s determination that she had violated the terms of her probation by committing criminal mischief.  The State argues that we must affirm because appellant only challenges two of the three grounds for revocation.  We agree.

We review a determination to adjudicate guilt in the same manner we review revocation of community supervision.  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2010).  Proof of any violation of the terms of community supervision will support an order revoking community supervision.  O’Neal v. State, 623 S.W.2d 660, 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981).  Leaving one or more grounds for revocation of community supervision unchallenged precludes a showing of abuse of discretion.  Gobell v. State, 528 S.W.2d 223, 224 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975); see also Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 & n.36 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (applying Gobell to adjudication of guilt hearing).  Because appellant does not challenge all of the State’s allegations that she violated the terms of her community supervision, appellant cannot establish an abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ruling.

We overrule appellant’s sole issue.

Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                                                   Laura Carter Higley

                                                                   Justice

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Yates.[3]

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

---

[1]           See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.51(b) (Vernon Supp. 2010).

[2]           See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 28.03(a) (Vernon Supp. 2010).

[3]           The Honorable Leslie Brock Yates, former Justice, Court of Appeals, Fourteenth District of Texas at Houston, participating by assignment.