Gipson v. Texas (Original)
Annotate this CaseThe issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on whether a plea of "true" to failure to pay "fees" as required under conditions of community supervision waived or forfeited a claim if the defendant was unable to make those payments. Appellant Raimond Kevon Gipson pled true to the failure-to-pay allegation without raising any argument or evidence that he was unable to pay and, on appeal, made that argument for the first time. Without addressing whether his argument was preserved, the court of appeals determined that there was no evidence that appellant had willfully refused to make the community-supervision payments and held that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his community supervision. The State argued, however, that a court of appeals may not reverse on the merits of a claim without first determining that it had been preserved for appeal. The Supreme Court agreed: because the court of appeals found the evidence insufficient to support revocation without addressing the State's procedural argument, the case was remanded back to that court for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.