Robert Kennedy v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 204th District Court of Dallas County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 10th District Court of Appeals » 1997 » Robert Kennedy v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 204th District Court of Dallas County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 10-97-00054-CR

Case Date: 10/08/1997

Plaintiff: Robert Kennedy

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 204th District Court of Dallas County

Preview:Robert Kennedy v. The State of Texas--Appeal from
204th District Court of Dallas County
Robert Kennedy v. State /**/
IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-97-054-CR
ROBERT KENNEDY,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 204th District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court # F95-50522-SQ
O P I N I O N
Appellant Kennedy appeals from a judgment of the trial court revoking his probation and sentencing him to five years
in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division, and a $300 fine.
Appellant was convicted of attempted sexual assault in February 1996, and was sentenced to ten years in TDCJ-ID,
probated.
The State filed an amended motion to revoke Appellant's probation on November 26, 1996. Appellant pled true to each
alleged violation of the conditions of his probation. On December 13, 1996, the trial court revoked Appellant's
probation and sentenced him to five years in prison and a $300 fine.
Appellant appeals on one point of error: "The trial imposed an unreasonable condition of probation."
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/2207.html[8/20/2013 7:11:42 PM]

Specifically, Appellant argues that the trial court's conditions of probation required Appellant to register as a sex
offender with the Dallas Police Department's Crime Against Persons Division, and that this was an unreasonable
requirement; that because of the stigma attached to being a sex offender, it prevented him from securing employment
to get funds to comply with the financial obligations of his probation.
The State's amended motion to revoke alleged five violations of the terms and conditions of Appellant's probation:
1. Appellant did not report to his probation officer for October 1996;
2. Appellant failed to pay court costs and a fine and is delinquent $170;
3. Appellant failed to pay probation fees and is delinquent $95;
4. Appellant failed to pay restitution and is delinquent $40;
5. Appellant failed to successfully complete Sexual Abuse Clinical Assessment/ Treatment as directed.
In a probation revocation hearing the State's burden of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. Kulhanek v. State,
587 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).
The trial judge is the sole trier of facts, the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given
their testimony. Battle v. State, 571 S.W.2d 20, 21 (Tex. Crim. App.. 1978).
The findings, conclusions and orders of the trial judge should not be reversed unless a clear abuse of discretion is
shown. Flournoy v. State, 589 S.W.2d 705, 708 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).
An appellate court will determine whether the trial court abused its discretion by examining the evidence in the light
most favorable to the trial court's orders. Cordonau v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).
Proof of a single violation is sufficient to support the judgment of revocation. Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191, 193-94
(Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
Appellant pled true to all allegations of violation of the conditions of his probation. The evidence on trial was that all
alleged violations of the conditions of his probation were true. There was no evidence to the contrary.
Appellant's point is overruled. The judgment is affirmed.
FRANK G. McDONALD
Chief Justice (Retired)
Before Chief Justice Davis,
Justice Cummings and
Chief Justice McDonald (Retired)
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed October 8, 1997
Do not publish
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/2207.html[8/20/2013 7:11:42 PM]

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/2207.html[8/20/2013 7:11:42 PM]

Download 2207.pdf