IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-15-00008-CR

HAROLD BAREFIELD,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law

Navarro County, Texas

Trial Court No. C-35172-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Harold Barefield pled guilty to, and was convicted of, the offense of Attempted 

Sexual Assault. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 15.01; 22.011 (West 2011). He was 

sentenced to 10 years in prison. His sentence was suspended, and Barefield was placed 

on community supervision for six years. Five months later, the State sought to revoke 

Barefield’s community supervision. After a hearing, the trial court granted the State’s 

motion, revoked Barefield’s community supervision, and sentenced Barefield to four 
Barefield v. State Page 2

years in prison. In one issue, Barefield asserts the trial court abused its discretion in 

revoking Barefield’s community supervision. Because the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

We review a decision to revoke community supervision for an abuse of 

discretion. Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The State’s 

burden of proof in a revocation proceeding is by a preponderance of the evidence. Cobb 

v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Further, the violation of a single 

condition of community supervision is sufficient to support a revocation. Smith v. State, 

286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) ("We have long held that 'one sufficient 

ground for revocation would support the trial court's order revoking' community 

supervision.") (quoting Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191, 193-94 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel 

Op.] 1978); Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980); Moses 

v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). Thus, in order to 

prevail on appeal, an appellant must successfully challenge all the findings that support 

the revocation order. Joseph v. State, 3 S.W.3d 627, 640 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 

1999, no pet.). 

The State alleged seven grounds for revocation; those being, that Barefield used 

alcohol; failed to report; failed to pay court costs; failed to pay probation fees; failed to 

attend AA meetings; failed to pay sex offender supervision fees; and was unsuccessfully 
Barefield v. State Page 3

discharged from the sex offender program. The trial court found that Barefield violated 

all the terms of community supervision alleged by the State as violations. 

Barefield’s community supervision officer testified that Barefield was prohibited 

from using alcohol while on community supervision and that Barefield violated that 

condition of community supervision by drinking alcohol on a specific date. Barefield 

admitted to the trial court that he drank alcohol to celebrated getting out of jail and 

does not contest this violation on appeal. Because proof by a preponderance of the 

evidence of only one violation is sufficient to support revocation, the trial court did not 

abuse its discretion in revoking Barefield’s community supervision.

Barefield’s sole issue is overruled, and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed July 23, 2015

Do not publish 

[CR25]