From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Black v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston
Jul 28, 2005
No. 14-04-00471-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 28, 2005)

Opinion

No. 14-04-00471-CR

Opinion filed July 28, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P.47.2(b).

On Appeal from the 212th District Court, Galveston County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 00CR0664. Affirmed.

Panel consists of Justices EDELMAN, SEYMORE, and GUZMAN.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Stephen Frederick Black appeals the revocation of his post-conviction community supervision on the ground that he was unable to comply with the conditions for which his probation was revoked due to indigence and lack of transportation. Appellant's brief does not state a standard of review or recognized ground for reversal of a judgment, and does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to prove that he failed to comply with his probation conditions. See Tex.R.App.P. 38(h). To the extent he is challenging the factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the revocation, his testimony that he was unable to comply with conditions does not greatly outweigh the evidence in the record that transportation was, in fact, available to him. See, e.g., Vodochodsky v. State, 158 S.W.3d 502, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). Because appellant's sole issue thus affords no basis for relief, it is overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.


Summaries of

Black v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston
Jul 28, 2005
No. 14-04-00471-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 28, 2005)
Case details for

Black v. State

Case Details

Full title:STEPHEN FREDRICK BLACK, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston

Date published: Jul 28, 2005

Citations

No. 14-04-00471-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 28, 2005)

Citing Cases

Arista v. State

First, the record does not establish that Arista had no available means of transportation. He testified that…