probation must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of probation). Second, we review whether the trial court’s decision was within its discretion to revoke appellant’s community supervision. See id. at 763 (trial court’s order revoking community supervision reviewed for abuse of discretion); see also Bryant, 391 S.W.3d at 93. The record demonstrates that the trial court considered the statutorily enumerated factors in making its revocation determination in compliance with the former restitution statute. See Bryant, 391 S.W.3d at 93-94. This, together with our determination that the State proved that appellant violated the conditions of her probation, leads us to conclude that the trial court did not. abuse its discretion. See id. at 94 (<HOLDING>). Third, we consider whether the trial court’s
holding that there was no abuse of discretion where trial court considered statutory factors and state proved a violation of probation conditions holding no abuse of discretion in trial courts exclusion of evidence where evidence was cumulative holding trial court abused its discretion in finding violation where state presented no evidence that defendant ever received the instruction from probation officer and thus knew about the condition holding trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation where greater weight of evidence did not show violation was willful holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding violation was willful and substantial