Daniel Jose Dickson v. State ( 2018 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-17-00257-CR
DANIEL JOSE DICKSON,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 52nd District Court
Coryell County, Texas
Trial Court No. 16-23574
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Daniel Jose Dickson pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent
to distribute. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.112 (West 2017). An
adjudication of guilt was deferred, and Dickson was placed on community supervision.
After a contested hearing on the State’s amended motion to adjudicate guilt and revoke
community supervision, the trial court revoked Dickson’s community supervision,
adjudicated Dickson guilty, and sentenced him to two years in State Jail. Dickson raises
three issues on appeal. We affirm.
A motion to adjudicate guilt is reviewed in the same manner as a motion to revoke
community supervision. See Leonard v. State, 385 S.W.3d 570, 572 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App.
2012) (holding hearings on motion to adjudicate guilt are subset of revocation hearings).
Thus, we review a trial court's decision to adjudicate guilt and revoke community
supervision using an abuse of discretion standard. See id. at 576.
Dickson noted in his brief that the trial court found Dickson violated only some of
the conditions of community supervision alleged by the State in its amended motion to
adjudicate. He uses the trial court’s oral pronouncement as support for this assertion.
The State, however, in its brief, pointed out that the trial court’s judgment indicates
Dickson violated all of the conditions of community supervision alleged by the State.
Dickson did not file a reply brief disputing the State’s assertion.
It is well-settled that a written order revoking community supervision controls
over an oral pronouncement by the trial court judge. See Eubanks v. State, 599 S.W.2d 815,
817 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Clapper v. State, 562 S.W.2d 250, 251 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
See also Coffey v. State, 979 S.W.2d 326, 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Here, the written order
revoking Dickson’s community supervision is the trial court’s judgment which indicates
Dickson violated all but two terms of community supervision alleged by the State.1 Thus,
the written judgment controls.
Dickson failed to raise any issue concerning the trial court’s judgment regarding
1The judgment indicates that Dickson violated “CONDITIONS #1(x3), #14, #19A, #19D, #20A.” The State
alleged 5 violations of condition #1. Thus, the trial court did not find that Dickson violated all of the
conditions alleged by the State. However, this does not affect the result of this appeal.
Dickson v. State Page 2
Dickson’s failure to pay his community supervision fees, the crime stopper fee, and the
Post-Sentence Investigation fee, conditions numbered 14, 19A, and 19D. Our review of
the record does not reveal the trial court abused its discretion in revoking Dickson’s
community supervision on any of these grounds.2 Accordingly, we need not address
Dickson’s issues raised on appeal since one sufficient ground for revocation will support
the court's decision to revoke community supervision. See Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924,
926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (no need to address appellant’s other contentions since one
ground appellant did not address supported trial court’s revocation order); Gobell v. State,
528 S.W.2d 223 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) (trial court's revocation of probation was proper
because, even if appellant’s contentions were correct, his revocation was based on two
offenses and he challenged only one). See also Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2009).
Dickson’s issues are overruled, and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed March 21, 2018
Do not publish
[CR25]
2Dickson did not dispute at the hearing on the State’s amended motion to revoke that he failed to pay any
of those fees.
Dickson v. State Page 3