or remains on property of another without effective
consent and he had notice that the entry was forbidden or received notice to depart but failed to do
so.  See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 30.05(a) (West 2003).  At the hearing on the motion to revoke,
Martin testified that in February 2002 and during the previous six months, appellant entered her
home on several occasions without her permission and after being advised that he was forbidden
from entering.  A neighbor also testified that he observed appellant entering Martin's home and
called police because he was aware appellant was not authorized to enter Martin's home.  The police
located appellant in the vicinity of Martin's home.  Appellant testified on his own behalf that he and
Martin had an "on again/off again" relationship and thatfrom time to time he was welcome in her
home.
	Martin and two other witnesses also testified extensively concerning appellant's
stalking of her, which included threatening language and harassing conduct directed toward Martin
and her family.  Martin and another witness testified that they believed appellant had vandalized her
car, as well as a friend's car that was parked in front of her house.  Appellant admitted to putting
pebbles in the gas tank of Martin's car.
	Based upon our review of the evidence, we hold that the State proved by a
preponderance of the evidence that appellant violated the terms and conditions of his community
supervision.  Because we find the State carried its burden with respect to the criminal trespass
violation and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant's community
supervision, we need