MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion by: REBECCA SIMMONS, Justice.

Andre Brown appeals the trial court's judgment revoking his community supervision and sentencing him to three years imprisonment for possession of a controlled substance. Because the issue in this appeal involves the application of well-settled principles of law, we affirm the trial court's judgment in this memorandum opinion. See Tex.R.App.P. 47.4. Brown pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance and was placed on three years community supervision. On May 17, 2004, the State filed a motion to revoke Brown's community supervision, alleging violations of probation conditions 1, 10, and 11. On June 17, 2004, the State filed a motion to supplement the motion to revoke, alleging a violation of condition 12. The revocation hearing was held on June 18, 2004. "In a felony case, the state may amend the motion to revoke community supervision at any time up to seven days before the date of the revocation hearing, after which time the motion may not be amended except for good cause shown." Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 21(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005). On appeal, Brown contends that his due process rights were violated because the State amended the motion to revoke within seven days of the date of the revocation hearing without a showing of good cause; however, Brown did not object to the untimely amendment at the hearing. Accordingly, Brown has waived this complaint. Rogers v. State, 640 S.W.2d 248, 263-265 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1981); Burns v. State, 835 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1992, pet. ref'd). Furthermore, Brown pled true to violating conditions 11 and 12 of the terms of his community supervision. Proof of any one of the alleged violations is sufficient to support the order revoking probation. Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1979); Atchison v. State, 124 S.W.3d 755, 758 n. 4 (Tex.App.-Austin 2003, pet. ref'd). The trial court's judgment is affirmed.