Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Robert C. Chapman appeals the trial court’s order revoking his community supervision, following which he was committed to the county jail for 180 days. Pursuant to a divorce decree entered April 21, 1995, Chapman was ordered to make monthly child support payments. The child support payments were modified by order entered Jan. 16, 1998. When Chapman subsequently failed to comply with the order, the state filed a motion for enforcement. The trial court entered an order enforcing Chapman’s child support obligation Oct. 3, 2001. By that same order, the court found Chapman guilty of civil contempt and ordered him committed to the county jail, but suspended Chapman’s commitment and placed him on community supervision until he paid the sums specified in the order. In March 2003, the state filed another motion for enforcement of child support. The trial court found Chapman guilty of civil contempt and ordered that he be committed to the county jail for 180 days. On the date Chapman’s commitment was scheduled to begin, the trial court rescinded Chapman’s commitment and placed him on community supervision for 120 months. In May 2004, the state filed another motion to revoke Chapman’s community supervision. The trial court signed an order revoking Chapman’s community supervision and again committing him to the county jail. Yet, on that same day, the court signed an order providing for Chapman’s conditional release. On Oct. 21, 2004, the court signed an amended conditional release order requiring that Chapman, among other things, 1. pay all regular child support due under the prior order, and 2. make all payments on child support arrears as previously ordered. On Jan. 20, 2005, the trial court conducted a hearing and, finding that Chapman had violated the conditions of his release, signed an order committing him to county jail for 180 days. This appeal followed. HOLDING:The court dismisses for want of jurisdiction the portions of Chapman’s sole issue concerning the propriety of the trial court’s contempt order. The court affirms the trial court’s order revoking Chapman’s community supervision. Although Chapman argues that the evidence is clear, direct and positive that he “is indigent and totally lacked the ability to pay any child support[,]” such an argument is an affirmative defense to a contempt allegation, see Texas Family Code �157.008(c)(1), a matter that this court is without jurisdiction to consider. The only question presented in an appeal from an order revoking community supervision is whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking the defendant’s community supervision. Moreover, proof of any one alleged violation is sufficient to support an order revoking community supervision. The court holds that since the record reflects that Chapman admittedly did not make child support payments as ordered, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking his community supervision. OPINION:Griffith, J. Worthen, CJ, Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.