A motion to revoke (MTR) under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 42A.751 alleges that a defendant on straight probation has violated one or more conditions. The state must prove violations by a preponderance of the evidence. If the court finds violation, it may continue probation, modify conditions, or revoke and impose imprisonment up to the originally suspended sentence.
When MTRs are filed
MTRs are filed by the prosecutor on the probation officer's recommendation. Common triggers: new arrest, positive drug test, failure to report, failure to pay fees or restitution, failure to complete required programs, leaving the jurisdiction without permission.
The probation officer is the front-line monitor of compliance. The officer reports to the court through the supervising prosecutor (typically the same office that prosecuted the original case). Probation officers exercise significant discretion in deciding which violations to report: minor technical violations (one missed report, late fee payment, missed community-service hour) are often addressed informally; substantive violations (new arrest, positive drug test, leaving jurisdiction) almost always trigger MTR filing.
The MTR itself is a short pleading filed in the supervising court. It identifies the original case, the conditions allegedly violated, and the factual basis (date and nature of each violation). The motion is verified — typically by the probation officer's affidavit. A capias warrant for the defendant's arrest may issue ex parte on the affidavit.
Common MTR allegations include: (1) commission of a new offense; (2) failure to report as directed; (3) failure to pay fines, fees, court costs, or restitution; (4) failure to perform community service hours; (5) failure to complete required programs (substance-abuse treatment, anger management, parenting); (6) positive drug or alcohol test; (7) leaving the jurisdiction without permission; (8) failure to maintain employment; (9) association with persons of disreputable character; (10) any other condition violation.
Notice, arrest, and bond on the MTR
After MTR filing, the defendant is typically arrested on a capias warrant. A bond hearing follows, with bond often set higher than the original bond. The defendant may request release on bond pending the revocation hearing.
Once a capias warrant issues, the defendant can be arrested by any peace officer. The defendant is brought before a magistrate for a Rule 5/15 hearing, advised of the MTR allegations, and addressed on bond. The court may set a new bond, deny bond entirely, or refer to the supervising court for bond decision.
Bond on MTR is typically higher than the original case bond, reflecting the additional charge (the violation of probation) and the increased flight risk for someone facing potential revocation. Some courts deny bond entirely if the MTR alleges a serious new offense; others set bond at a level the defendant can typically post; others release on personal recognizance pending the hearing.
The defendant who posts bond must continue to comply with the original probation conditions plus any new conditions the court imposes pending the hearing (often expanded reporting, enhanced drug testing, prohibition on contact with alleged new victims, etc.). Failure to comply pending the hearing supports a separate motion to revoke bond.
The evidentiary hearing under 42A.755
The MTR evidentiary hearing under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 42A.755 resembles a trial but with significant differences: preponderance standard (not beyond reasonable doubt), no jury, hearsay generally admissible, and limited Sixth Amendment confrontation right.
The state's burden at MTR hearing is preponderance of the evidence — not beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant has rights to: notice of the allegations, counsel (appointed if indigent under Criminal Justice Act standards), opportunity to be heard, cross-examination of state witnesses (subject to some limits), production of evidence, and opportunity to testify or remain silent.
The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause does not fully apply to revocation hearings under Black v. State, 411 S.W.3d 25 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.). Hearsay is generally admissible. The probation officer can testify about reports received from drug-testing labs, treatment programs, victims, and other sources without producing live witnesses. Defense counsel must work within the relaxed evidentiary framework.
Common defense strategies: (1) challenge the factual basis of each allegation, (2) present mitigating evidence (employment achievements, treatment progress, family circumstances, restitution payment), (3) argue that violation was technical or non-willful (medical emergency caused missed report, financial hardship caused fee shortfall), (4) propose enhanced conditions (additional treatment, electronic monitoring) in lieu of revocation, (5) challenge a new-offense allegation through suppression motion or evidentiary challenge.
Sentencing on MTR — the suspended-sentence cap
If the court finds a violation, sentencing options are limited by the original suspended sentence. The court may continue probation, modify conditions, extend the term, or revoke and impose imprisonment — but cannot impose more time than originally suspended.
Under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 42A.755(a), if the court finds that the defendant violated probation, the court may: (1) continue, modify, or extend the term of community supervision; (2) revoke community supervision; or (3) impose any sanction available under the law.
Critical limit: the court cannot impose more imprisonment than the originally suspended sentence. A defendant whose original plea included a 5-year suspended sentence on a third-degree felony faces a maximum of 5 years imprisonment on revocation — not the 10-year third-degree statutory maximum. This is the structural protection that distinguishes straight probation from deferred adjudication.
The court can extend the probation term up to the statutory maximum for the offense even when continuing probation. For example, a 3-year probation on a third-degree felony with a 10-year statutory max can be extended to 5 or 10 years total. Modification of conditions — adding new requirements, removing some — is also routine. Many MTR cases resolve through modification rather than revocation.
Practical revocation sentences vary widely. First-offense MTRs for technical violations frequently end in continuation with modified conditions. Substantive violations (new offense conviction, sustained positive drug tests) more often produce revocation. Sentence length on revocation varies by judge, county, and offense — the original suspended-sentence cap is rarely the only relevant factor.
Related topics
This page is part of the Texas Probation and Deferred Adjudication compendium. Continue with related topics:
Texas community-supervision question?
Whether you are pre-plea evaluating options, navigating supervision, or facing a motion to revoke or adjudicate — early counsel can substantially improve outcomes.
FAQ
How does this topic interact with the rest of Texas community supervision?
This page covers one piece of the Texas community-supervision framework under Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 42A. The pillar guide at /texas-probation-deferred-adjudication/ covers the full framework; this satellite focuses on one aspect in depth. Defense counsel evaluates each case across all relevant provisions.
Does this topic apply in Collin, Denton, Dallas, and Tarrant counties?
Yes. Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 42A applies statewide. Local court practices, prosecutor policies, and supervising-officer discretion vary by county; the substantive framework is the same. L and L Law Group practices community-supervision matters in the four North Texas counties plus surrounding jurisdictions.
Should I retain counsel for this issue?
Texas community-supervision questions — pre-plea evaluation, condition modification, motion-to-revoke or motion-to-adjudicate defense, early termination, transfer, ODL, non-disclosure — typically benefit substantially from counsel. Each decision has cascade effects that can be hard to assess without experience in the specific procedural context.
Last reviewed: May 17, 2026 by Njeri London · Next review: November 17, 2024.