Vinince Paul Jones v. State
This text of Vinince Paul Jones v. State (Vinince Paul Jones v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-19-00176-CR
VININCE PAUL JONES, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 402nd District Court Wood County, Texas Trial Court No. 23,386-2017
Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Stevens MEMORANDUM OPINION Vinince Paul Jones pled guilty to and was convicted of evading arrest or detention with a
motor vehicle. Pursuant to the terms of his plea bargain agreement with the State, Jones was placed
on community supervision for ten years and was ordered to pay a $500.00 fine and courts costs.
The terms and conditions of Jones’s community supervision incorporated the trial court’s orders
and also required him to refrain from committing another offense. The State moved to revoke
Jones’s community supervision, alleging that Jones caused bodily injury to his girlfriend by
choking her. After the trial court found the State’s allegation true, it revoked Jones’s community
supervision, sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment, imposed the originally assessed $500.00
fine, and ordered him to pay $413.00 in court costs.
On appeal, Jones raises issues common to his appeal in companion case number 06-19-
00175-CR. Jones argues that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay, insufficient evidence
supports the revocation, and the fine originally assessed when Jones was placed on community
supervision should be removed because it was not orally pronounced at the revocation hearing.
We addressed these issues in detail in our opinion of this date on Jones’s appeal in cause
number 06-19-00175-CR. For the reasons stated there, we likewise conclude here that (1) the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Jones’s hearsay objection, (2) sufficient evidence
supports the trial court’s revocation of Jones’s community supervision, and (3) the fine was
properly assessed.
2 We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Scott E. Stevens Justice
Date Submitted: February 18, 2020 Date Decided: February 19, 2020
Do Not Publish
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Vinince Paul Jones v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vinince-paul-jones-v-state-texapp-2020.