Gipson v. State

The appellant pleaded true to the failure-to-pay allegation without raising any argument or evidence that he was unable to pay and, on appeal, makes that argument for the first time. By misreading Bearden as imposing an evidentiary burden on the state, the court of appeals erred in applying it as the standard for reviewing appellant's sufficiency claim. Because the court of appeals did not address the state's procedural questions before reversing the case on insufficiency grounds, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed. Court of Criminal Appeals, No. PD-1470-11, 11-14-2012.

This article requires premium access

This article requires premium access to Texas Lawyer. Please sign in or subscribe to read the full text.