Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
50 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1990–2025 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Haim Silber v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Thus, “to prevail on appeal, the defendant must successfully challenge all of the findings that support the revocation order.” Silber v. State, 371 S.W.3d 605, 611 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.). 2025Thus, “to prevail on appeal, the defendant must successfully challenge all of the findings that support the revocation order.” Silber v. State, 371 S.W.3d 605, 611 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.). | 15 | 18 |
Harris v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Cobb, 851 S.W.2d at 874 ; Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 493–94. ―To overturn a revocation order, a defendant must successfully challenge each finding on which the revocation is based.‖ Harris v. State, 160 S.W.3d 621, 626 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, pet. dism’d); see also Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191, 193-4 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978 [Panel Op.]); Brooks v. State, 153 S.W.3d 124, 126 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2004, no pet.). 2014However, to overturn a revocation order, a defendant must successfully challenge each finding on which the revocation is based, and he cannot challenge a revocation finding on an allegation to which he pleaded “true.” Harris v. State, 160 S.W.3d 621, 626 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, pet. stricken); see also Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333 , 342 & n.36 (Tex. Crim. | 11 | 11 |
Moore v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Therefore, “to prevail on appeal, the defendant must successfully challenge all of the findings that support the revocation order.” Silber v. State, 371 S.W.3d 605, 611 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.) (emphasis added); accord Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. 2015See Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 812 ;Moore, 605 S.W.2d at 926 ; see also Diaz v. State, No. 10-11-00269-CR, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 2029 , at *4 (Tex. App.—Waco Mar. 14, 2012,no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ("As such, we can uphold the trial court's revocation of community supervision on those unchallenged grounds."); Castro-Marquez v. State, No. 14-11-00314-CR, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 10068 , at **5-6 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist] Dec. 22, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Ferris v. State, No. 01-09-00676-CR, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 1232 , at **5-6 (Tex. App.—Ho | 9 | 12 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Cobb, 851 S.W.2d at 874 ; Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 493–94. ―To overturn a revocation order, a defendant must successfully challenge each finding on which the revocation is based.‖ Harris v. State, 160 S.W.3d 621, 626 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, pet. dism’d); see also Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191, 193-4 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978 [Panel Op.]); Brooks v. State, 153 S.W.3d 124, 126 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2004, no pet.). 2012“To overturn a revocation order, a defendant must successfully challenge each finding on which the revocation is based.” Harris v. State , 160 S.W.3d 621, 626 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, pet. dism’d) (citing Jones v State , 571 S.W.2d 191 , 193–94 (Tex. Crim. | 7 | 12 |
Garcia, Victor Martinezgreen2 sentences2019See Garcia, 387 S.W.3d at 26 ; Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. 2018See Garcia, 387 S.W.3d at 26 ; Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. | 7 | 7 |
Joseph v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Joseph v. State, 3 S.W.3d 627, 640 (Tex. App—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.). 2015See Smith, 286 S.W.3d at 342-43 ; Sterling v. State, 791 S.W.2d 274, 277 (Tex. App. -- Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref’d) (citing Moore); Joseph v. State, 3 S.W.3d 627, 640 (Tex. App. -- Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.); Harris v. State, 160 S.W.3d 621, 626 (Tex. App. -- Waco 2005, pet. struck). | 5 | 10 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2014However, to overturn a revocation order, a defendant must successfully challenge each finding on which the revocation is based, and he cannot challenge a revocation finding on an allegation to which he pleaded “true.” Harris v. State, 160 S.W.3d 621, 626 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, pet. stricken); see also Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333 , 342 & n.36 (Tex. Crim. 2012To overturn a revocation order, a defendant must successfully challenge each finding on which the revocation is based, and he cannot challenge a revocation finding on an allegation to which he pleaded “true.” Harris v. State, 160 S.W.3d 621, 626 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, pet. stricken); see also Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333 , 342 & n.36 (Tex. Crim. | 4 | 5 |
Sterling v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Smith, 286 S.W.3d at 342-43 ; Sterling v. State, 791 S.W.2d 274, 277 (Tex. App. -- Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref’d) (citing Moore); Joseph v. State, 3 S.W.3d 627, 640 (Tex. App. -- Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.); Harris v. State, 160 S.W.3d 621, 626 (Tex. App. -- Waco 2005, pet. struck). 2009At most, however, Borchick challenges the court’s findings with regard to only five of the seven violations found by the court.1 “To obtain reversal for insufficiency of the evidence in a probation revocation case, a defendant must successfully challenge each ground on which the trial court relies, because one sufficient ground supports the trial court’s order.” Anderson v. State, No. 10-07-00294-CR, 2008 WL 3506875 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco Aug. 13, 2008, no pet.) (quoting Sterling v. State, 791 S.W.2d 274, 277 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, pet. ref’d) (citing Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, | 4 | 4 |
Cole v. Stategreen2 sentences2014App. 2009) (“We have long held that ‘one sufficient ground for revocation would support the trial court’s order revoking’ community supervision.”); Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. 2012App. 2009) (“We have long held that ‘one sufficient ground for revocation would support the trial court’s order revoking’ community supervision.”); Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. | 3 | 3 |
Thompson v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 812 ;Moore, 605 S.W.2d at 926 ; see also Diaz v. State, No. 10-11-00269-CR, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 2029 , at *4 (Tex. App.—Waco Mar. 14, 2012,no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ("As such, we can uphold the trial court's revocation of community supervision on those unchallenged grounds."); Castro-Marquez v. State, No. 14-11-00314-CR, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 10068 , at **5-6 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist] Dec. 22, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Ferris v. State, No. 01-09-00676-CR, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 1232 , at **5-6 (Tex. App.—Ho 2015See Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 812 ; Moore, 605 S.W.2d at 926 ; see also Diaz v. State, No. 10-11-00269-CR, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 2029 , at *4 (Tex. App.—Waco Mar. 14, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“As such, we can uphold the trial court’s revocation of community supervision on those unchallenged grounds.”); Castro-Marquez v. State, No. 14-11-00314-CR, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 10068 , at **5-6 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 22, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Ferris v. State, No. 01-09-00676-CR, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 1232 , at **5-6 (Tex. App. | 2 | 2 |
Baxter v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Joseph, 3 S.W.3d at 640 (citing Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191, 193-94 (Tex.Crim.App.1978)); see also Baxter v. State, 936 S.W.2d 469, 472 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1996, pet. dism’d) (holding that because appellant did not challenge second ground for revocation, sufficient evidence supported revocation). 2011Joseph , 3 S.W.3d at 640 ; Baxter v. State , 936 S.W.2d 469, 472 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, pet. dism’d) (holding that because appellant did not challenge second ground for revocation, sufficient evidence supported revocation). | 2 | 2 |
Brooks v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Cobb, 851 S.W.2d at 874 ; Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 493–94. ―To overturn a revocation order, a defendant must successfully challenge each finding on which the revocation is based.‖ Harris v. State, 160 S.W.3d 621, 626 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, pet. dism’d); see also Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191, 193-4 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978 [Panel Op.]); Brooks v. State, 153 S.W.3d 124, 126 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2004, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen1 sentence2005See Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191, 193-94 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Joseph v. State, 3 S.W.3d 627, 640 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.); Smith v. State, 790 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, pet. ref'd). | 1 | 1 |
Grim v. Stategreen1 sentence1990Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Grim v. State, 656 S.W.2d 542, 543 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1983, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cardona v. State
green
1 sentence2015Cobb, 851 S.W.2d at 874 ; Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 493–94. ―To overturn a revocation order, a defendant must successfully challenge each finding on which the revocation is based.‖ Harris v. State, 160 S.W.3d 621, 626 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, pet. dism’d); see also Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191, 193-4 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978 [Panel Op.]); Brooks v. State, 153 S.W.3d 124, 126 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2004, no pet.). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Cobb v. State
green
1 sentence2015Cobb, 851 S.W.2d at 874 ; Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 493–94. ―To overturn a revocation order, a defendant must successfully challenge each finding on which the revocation is based.‖ Harris v. State, 160 S.W.3d 621, 626 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, pet. dism’d); see also Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191, 193-4 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978 [Panel Op.]); Brooks v. State, 153 S.W.3d 124, 126 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2004, no pet.). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Rickels v. State
green
1 sentence2012Because Diaz does not challenge all of the allegations made by the State in its motion to revoke, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking Diaz’s community supervision.2 See Smith, 286 S.W.3d at 342 ; Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763 ; Moore, 1 The record contains a copy of Diaz’s theft conviction, which transpired after he was placed on community supervision for the underlying aggravated assault with a deadly weapon charge. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.