admission claim in Texas

2023“A defendant’s admission of a violation to a probation officer, by itself, is sufficient to support a revocation.” Anthony v. State, 962 S.W.2d 242, 246 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.); see also Hernandez v. State, 704 S.W.2d 909, 910 (Tex. App.—Waco 1986, no pet.) (citing Cunningham v. State, 488 S.W.2d 117, 121 (Tex. Crim.

2011Appellant acknowledges the holding in Cunningham v. State that a probationer’s admission of a violation to his probation officer is sufficient to support a revocation. 488 S.W.2d 117, 121 (Tex. Crim.

2025Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873, 884 (Tex. Crim.

2011See Saldano v. State, 70 S.W.3d 873, 884 (Tex. Crim.

2024See In re A.C., 394 S.W.3d 633, 642 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.).

2024See In re A.C., 394 S.W.3d 633, 642 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.).

2020See Juarez, 308 S.W.3d at 405 .

2020Cf. id. 6 DISPOSITION Having overruled Appellant’s first and second issues, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

2016See State v. Esparza, 413 S.W.3d 81, 86-87 (Tex.Crim.App. 2013) (unless the opponent raises an objection, the State, as the 3 The State made clear that it intended Flowers and Ho to testify only regarding the manner in which the test results were conducted, and to have their supervisor, Dr. Robert Johnson, the Chief Toxicologist, interpret the results and explain to the jury how those results applied to Appellant’s case.

2016See State v. Esparza, 413 S.W.3d 81, 86-87 (Tex.Crim.App. 2013) (unless the opponent raises an objection, the State, as the proponent of breath test results, was not required to present any foundational evidence to establish its reliability).

2006See Hayden, 66 S.W.3d at 270 .

2006See Hayden, 66 S.W.3d at 270 .

2015Hanley, 171 S.W.2d at 865 ; see also Stein v. Hamman, 6 S.W.2d 352, 353 (Tex. 1928); see also House of Falcon v. Gonzalez, 583 S.W.2d 902, 905 (Tex. Civ.

1945Webber v. Cochrane, 4 Tex. 31 ; Howard et al. v. Windom, supra; York v. Hughes, Tex.Com.App., 286 S.W. 165 ; Stein v. Hamman et al., 118 Tex. 16 , 6 S.W.2d 352 ; 118 Tex. 16 , 9 S.W.2d 1104 ; Elsby v. Luna et ux., Tex.Com.App., 15 S.W.2d 604 ; 26 Texas Digest, Limitation of Actions, <§^148(2).

2023Ass’n, 171 S.W.2d 864, 865 (1943).

2015Hanley, 171 S.W.2d at 865 ; see also Stein v. Hamman, 6 S.W.2d 352, 353 (Tex. 1928); see also House of Falcon v. Gonzalez, 583 S.W.2d 902, 905 (Tex. Civ.

2025App.—Tyler 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.), and one has applied the admission rule without it, see Rodgers v. McFarland, 402 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Civ.

2025App.—Tyler 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.), and one has applied the admission rule without it, see Rodgers v. McFarland, 402 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Civ.

2023The erroneous admission of evidence is generally considered non-constitutional error, Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204, 219 (Tex. Crim.

2023“A defendant’s admission of a violation to a probation officer, by itself, is sufficient to support a revocation.” Anthony v. State, 962 S.W.2d 242, 246 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.); see also Hernandez v. State, 704 S.W.2d 909, 910 (Tex. App.—Waco 1986, no pet.) (citing Cunningham v. State, 488 S.W.2d 117, 121 (Tex. Crim.

2023“A defendant’s admission of a violation to a probation officer, by itself, is sufficient to support a revocation.” Anthony v. State, 962 S.W.2d 242, 246 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.); see also Hernandez v. State, 704 S.W.2d 909, 910 (Tex. App.—Waco 1986, no pet.) (citing Cunningham v. State, 488 S.W.2d 117, 121 (Tex. Crim.

2023See Ineos USA, 505 S.W.3d at 565 .

2022See Williams v. Unifund CCR Partners Assignee of Citibank, 264 S.W.3d 231 , 234–35 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (bank has cause of action to recover money or credit advanced as loan when customer does not pay credit card account and this claim does not relate to provision of goods or services because making loan does not constitute provision of goods or services).

2020So, as stated 2 in Shaw, the “defensive instruction is only appropriate when the defendant’s defensive evidence essentially admits to every element of the offense including the culpable mental state.” Shaw, 243 S.W.3d at 659 (emphasis in original).

2015The court of criminal appeals determined that a hearing held under article 38.072 "is intended only to determine the reliability of the complainant’s out-of-court statement,” that the "defendant’s opportunity for cross-examining the outcry witness at such a hearing is inadequate to allow the admission of the hearing testimony at trial,” and that "admitting testimony from an Article 38.072 hearing at a trial when the witness is unavailable violates the Sixth Amendment.” Id. at 478, 489 .

2015Hanley, 171 S.W.2d at 865 ; see also Stein v. Hamman, 6 S.W.2d 352, 353 (Tex. 1928); see also House of Falcon v. Gonzalez, 583 S.W.2d 902, 905 (Tex. Civ.

2013An appellant’s argument on appeal “must comport with the objection made at trial.” Wilson v. State, 71 S.W.3d 346, 349 (Tex. Crim.

2007See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc ., 509 U.S. 579, 590 (1993).

2006In Mechler , Judge Cochran stated, "In balancing the probative value of an intoxilyzer test result against its potential for creating unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues, the two most significant items in that balance are: 1) the actual test result itself and how much it exceeded the legal limit of 0.08% BAC; and 2) the time interval between the defendant's driving and the taking of the test." 153 S.W.3d at 444 (Cochran, J., concurring).