Joseph Hamilton v. State
Joseph Hamilton v. State
Opinion
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 "the defendant" and "my client." The officer, in turn, referred to the man arrested as "your client." 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.--Austin 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
Do Not Publish
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.