Affirmed and Majority and Concurring Memorandum Opinions filed September 24, 2020.

In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-19-00569-CR PATRICK DEWAYNE SANDERS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 185th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1331228 CONCURRING OPINION I concur but write separately to express my reservations. First, I accept that binding case law only requires the State to prove the defendant’s identity by a preponderance of the evidence at a revocation hearing; however, I question the wisdom of utilizing such a low burden given (1) that the person before the court will be deprived of their liberty if the offense at issue is proven and (2) the relatively burdenless ease with which the State should be able to reliably prove that the person who it intends to deprive of liberty is the same person who committed both the underlying offense and the offense warranting revocation. Second, I believe this appeal (at least with respect to the question concerning the confirmation of Appellant’s identity using “software”) implicates important issues concerning hearsay, best evidence, and confrontation, none of which were presented to the trial court or are properly before us on appeal. Third, I am concerned with the implicit conclusion that a government’s use of “software” is sufficient to deprive the People of their liberty, particularly where the record is devoid of details concerning said software and its results; while this is particularly disconcerting in light of the fact that the State’s witness had no personal knowledge concerning Appellant’s identity and took no steps to confirm said identity beyond the detail-less use of unspecified software, this issue was not properly preserved for our review.

Therefore, I concur in the judgment.

/s/ Meagan Hassan Justice Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jewell, and Hassan (Jewell, J., majority).

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).