Gipson, Raimond Kevon
383 S.W.3d 152
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Gipson pled true to the failure-to-pay allegation in a revocation hearing for community supervision, with no argument or evidence of inability to pay.
- The motion to revoke and stipulation of evidence referenced only nonpayment, not Gipson's financial ability to pay.
- The trial court revoked Gipson’s supervision and sentenced him to eight years in prison for the underlying felony assault.
- The Beaumont Court of Appeals reversed on sufficiency, finding no evidence Gipson willfully refused to pay, and remanded on preservation issues.
- The State sought discretionary review, arguing preservation should govern and that a plea of true may support revocation; the Court granted review and remanded for preservation analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether preserving the State's procedural argument was required before addressing merits | Gipson | Gipson | Remanded for preservation analysis; issue preserved for merits on remand |
| Whether Art. 42.12 §21(c) applies to all unpaid amounts or only enumerated fees | State | Gipson | Remanded to decide statutory scope on remand |
| Whether Bearden governs evidentiary review or only requires consideration of ability to pay | State | Gipson | Bearden not an evidentiary standard on review; applicability to remand remains |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. State, 482 S.W.2d 221 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (hearing not mandatory when defendant pleads true to revocation)
- Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (sufficiency could not be challenged after plea of true)
- Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (Marin framework for preservation; certain rights absolute unless waived)
- Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (Supreme Court 1983) (requirement to inquire into reasons for nonpayment and consider alternatives)
- Jones v. State, 589 S.W.2d 419 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (inability to pay as affirmative defense under prior law)
- Stanfield v. State, 718 S.W.2d 734 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (comment on legislative change and due-process implications)
- Menefee v. State, 287 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (remand to determine preservation under Marin framework)
- Lively v. State, 338 S.W.3d 140 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011) (Bearden-standard discussion on willfulness and bona fide efforts)
- Hill v. State, 719 S.W.2d 199 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (inability to pay as affirmative defense historically)