IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-15-00008-CR
HAROLD BAREFIELD,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the County Court at Law
Navarro County, Texas
Trial Court No. C-35172-CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Harold Barefield pled guilty to, and was convicted of, the offense of Attempted
Sexual Assault. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 15.01; 22.011 (West 2011). He was
sentenced to 10 years in prison. His sentence was suspended, and Barefield was placed
on community supervision for six years. Five months later, the State sought to revoke
Barefield’s community supervision. After a hearing, the trial court granted the State’s
motion, revoked Barefield’s community supervision, and sentenced Barefield to four
years in prison. In one issue, Barefield asserts the trial court abused its discretion in
revoking Barefield’s community supervision. Because the trial court did not abuse its
discretion, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
We review a decision to revoke community supervision for an abuse of
discretion. 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. 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. 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.") (quoting Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191, 193-94 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978); Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980); Moses
v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). Thus, in order to
prevail on appeal, an appellant must successfully challenge all the findings that support
the revocation order. Joseph v. State, 3 S.W.3d 627, 640 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
1999, no pet.).
The State alleged seven grounds for revocation; those being, that Barefield used
alcohol; failed to report; failed to pay court costs; failed to pay probation fees; failed to
attend AA meetings; failed to pay sex offender supervision fees; and was unsuccessfully
Barefield v. State Page 2
discharged from the sex offender program. The trial court found that Barefield violated
all the terms of community supervision alleged by the State as violations.
Barefield’s community supervision officer testified that Barefield was prohibited
from using alcohol while on community supervision and that Barefield violated that
condition of community supervision by drinking alcohol on a specific date. Barefield
admitted to the trial court that he drank alcohol to celebrated getting out of jail and
does not contest this violation on appeal. Because proof by a preponderance of the
evidence of only one violation is sufficient to support revocation, the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in revoking Barefield’s community supervision.
Barefield’s sole issue is overruled, and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed July 23, 2015
Do not publish
[CR25]
Barefield v. State Page 3