Donald Benjamin Graham v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 22, 2004
• Docket: 10-03-00231-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-03-00231-CR

Donald Benjamin Graham,

                                                                      Appellant

 v.

The State of Texas,

                                                                      Appellee

From the

Crim Dist Ct

4 of Dallas Co

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court # F01-1391-JK

MEMORANDUM Opinion

        Appellant appeals the revocation of his community supervision for murder.  We will affirm.

      The findings in the trial court’s written judgment revoking community supervision control over the court’s oral pronouncement.  Coffey v. State, 979 S.W.2d 326, 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Brown v. State, No. 10-03-00069-CR, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 8461, at *3 (Tex. App.—Waco Sept. 22, 2004, no pet. h.) (not designated for publication) (mem. op.).  The violation of one condition of community supervision is sufficient to revoke it.  See Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980); Maxey v. State, 49 S.W.3d 582, 584 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, pet. ref’d).  When an appellant does not challenge all of the grounds on which the trial court revokes community supervision, the court should be affirmed.  See Brown at *3; Baxter v. State, 936 S.W.2d 469, 472 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, pet. dism’d).

      The trial court orally found only that Appellant failed to report to his community supervision officer and failed to complete an anger control class, both as ordered in the judgment imposing community supervision.  In three issues, Appellant challenges those two findings.  The State’s motion to revoke community supervision alleged, however, that Appellant committed six violations of conditions of his community supervision, and the trial court’s written judgment revoking Appellant’s community supervision found that Appellant violated all the conditions as alleged in the motion.  Appellant does not challenge the trial court’s findings that he violated the other four conditions as alleged in the motion.  Accordingly, we overrule Appellant’s issues. 

      Having overruled Appellant’s issues, we affirm.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

      Justice Vance, and

      Justice Reyna

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed December 22, 2004

Do not publish

[CR25]