TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-01-00656-CR
NO. 03-01-00657-CR
Joseph Hamilton, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 331ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NOS. 992106 & 994188, HONORABLE BOB PERKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING
In both of these causes, Joseph Hamilton was placed on community supervision after being
convicted of possessing cocaine. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. ' 481.115 (West Supp. 2002).
He now appeals from orders revoking supervision, claiming that the evidence does not support the
violations found by the district court. We will affirm the court=s orders.
The court found that appellant violated the conditions of his supervision by, among other
things, possessing crack cocaine. This finding was based on the testimony of Austin Police Officer Andrew
Haynes, who testified that he arrested a Joseph Hamilton on March 16, 2001, for possession of crack
cocaine. Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove that the person arrested
possessed cocaine, but he urges in his first point of error that the State failed to prove that he was the
Joseph Hamilton arrested.
Officer Haynes did not explicitly identify appellant at the revocation hearing as the Joseph
Hamilton arrested on the night in question. Throughout his cross-examination of the officer, however,
defense counsel referred to the person arrested as Athe defendant@ and Amy client.@ The officer, in turn,
referred to the man arrested as Ayour client.@ Further, Officer Haynes positively identified appellant as the
person he arrested on March 16 during his testimony at the hearing on appellant=s motion to suppress
evidence held one month before the revocation hearing. The court could take judicial notice of the
testimony at that earlier hearing, which is in the record before us. See Barrientez v. State, 500 S.W.2d
474, 475 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973).1
The preponderance of the evidence supports the finding that appellant violated the
conditions of his supervision by possessing cocaine. See Ortega v. State, 860 S.W.2d 561, 564 (Tex.
App.CAustin 1993, no pet.) (burden of proof). Point of error one is overruled. Because one sufficient
ground will support revocation, we need not decide whether the evidence supports the other violations
found by the court. Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).
The orders revoking community supervision are affirmed.
__________________________________________
Mack Kidd, Justice
Before Justices Kidd, Patterson and Puryear
Affirmed
Filed: July 26, 2002
1
Appellant argues that the Barrientez judicial notice rule does not apply because the suppression
hearing and the revocation hearing were before different judges. This assertion is contradicted by the
record, which reflects that Judge Bob Perkins presided at both hearings.
2
Do Not Publish
3