Raimond Kevon Gipson A/K/A Raimond Gipson v. State, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 2489

Gipson was convicted of assault on a family member and received a 10-year prison term, suspended, with 10 years of community supervision.
The State moved to revoke Gipson’s community supervision on multiple grounds, including alleged failure to pay court-ordered fees.
Gipson pleaded true to the failure-to-pay allegation but denied the other grounds; the trial court revoked supervision and imposed an eight-year prison sentence.
The Beaumont Court of Appeals initially reversed, holding revocation based solely on a true plea to nonpayment was improper due to lack of evidence of willful nonpayment.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed that result on preservation grounds and remanded, directing the intermediate court to assess preservation before addressing merits.
On remand, the court concluded that revocation based on failure-to-pay alone requires evidence of ability to pay and willful failure, sustained Gipson’s first issue, and reversed the revocation; it dismissed the second issue as not preserved

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether revocation based solely on failure to pay fees can be sustained without evidence of ability to pay and willfulness	Gipson argues revocation must require willful nonpayment or proven inability to pay	Gipson (State) contends failure-to-pay alone can support revocation under Article 42.12	Yes, reversed for lack of willful nonpayment evidence
Whether Gipson's Bearden-based due-process claim was preserved for appeal	Gipson claims revocation without inquiring about ability to pay violated due process	State argues issue is not preserved; plea did not waive Bearden rights	Not preserved for review; overruled

Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (U.S. 1983) (inquiry into ability to pay may be required; due process concerns when unable to pay)
Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (three categories of rights; some rights implementable absent request; some require preservation)
Rogers v. State, 640 S.W.2d 248 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (preservation rules apply to procedural due process objections at revocation)
Hull v. State, 67 S.W.3d 215 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (preservation rule for due process objections at revocation)
Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (sufficiency of revocation based on nonpayment not forfeited; preserved on appeal)
Rankin v. State, 46 S.W.3d 899 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (nonpayment issues not forfeited in revocation contexts)
Whitehead v. State, 556 S.W.2d 802 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (common-law burden to prove ability to pay and willful failure)
McKnight v. State, 409 S.W.2d 858 (Tex. Crim. App. 1966) (requirement to show ability to pay and willful nonpayment)
Taylor v. State, 353 S.W.2d 422 (Tex. Crim. App. 1962) (early cases on payment of costs and willfulness)