holding that, because probation-revocation hearings are not criminal trials, the State’s burden of proof in a *379 probation-revocation hearing is only by a preponderance of the evidence
How later courts described this case
- holding that, because probation-revocation hearings are not criminal trials, the State’s burden of proof in a *379 probation-revocation hearing is only by a preponderance of the evidence
- holding that, because probation-revocation hearings are not criminal trials, the State=s burden of proof in a probation-revocation hearing is only by a preponderance of the evidence
- estab-lishing that probation revocation must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ONION, Presiding Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the result reached, but dissent to that portion of the opinion declaring the burden of proof in a revocation of probation proceeding to be “by a prepon *299 derance of the evidence.” I remain convinced that the proper burden of proof is “beyond a reasonable doubt” for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Kelly v. State, 483 S.W.2d 467, 473 (Tex.Cr.App.1972).