AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed May 2, 2019.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 18
- 00524
- CR No. 05
- 18
- 00526
- CR PETER EGHOSASERE OLA BODE , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F14
- 15563
- J Trial Court Cause No. F14
- 55950
- J



### OPINION Before Justi ces Brown, Schenck, and Peders en , III

Opinion by Justice Brown Appellant Peter Eghosasere Olabode appeals the trial court ’ s judgment s adjudicating him guilty of aggravated robbery 1 and evading arrest 2 and sentencing him to imprisonment for t wenty

five and ten years, respectively

. In three issues, appellant contend s the trial c ourt erred in (1) d enying his motion to quash the State’s amended motion s to revoke probation or proceed with an adjudication of guilt , (2) finding he violated probation C ondition T in the aggravated robbery case, and (3) admitting his probation file into evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm t he trial court’s judgments.

1 Trial cause number F14

- 15563

- J ; appellate cause number 05

- 18

- 00524

- CR.
2 Trial cause number F14

- 55950

- J ; appellate cause number 05

- 18

- 00526

- CR.– 2

– B ACKGROUND In separate proceedings, appellant judicially confessed and entered guilty pleas to aggravated robbery and evading arrest indictment s . The t rial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed appellant on eight years’ community supervision in each case. And, w ith the exception of Condition T, 3 appellant’s community supervision conditions were identical in each case

. The State fil e d a motion to revoke probati o n or proceed with an adjudicat ion of guilt in each case 4 and, after amend ing t h e motions , allege d violations of C on d itions A, B, C, D, E, F, G, K, L, N, P, Q, R, S, and T of appellant’s community supervision

. Appellant moved to quash the
State ’ s amended motions, asserting, among other things, that the motions failed to give him sufficient notice of the violations of Conditions A, B, C, E, F, G, L, P, Q, R , and S. The trial court considered appellant’s motion to quash at the outs et of a joint revocation hearing in the two cases. The S ta t e abandoned its alleg ed violations of Conditions A, B, C, and D in the aggravated robbery case and Conditions A, B, C , D, and T in the evading arrest case but argued the rema i ning allegations provided proper notice of the violations

. The trial court denied appellant’s motion to quash and, f

ollowing the hearing, found that appellant violated C onditions F, L, P , Q, and R in each case. In the aggravated robbery case, the tr i al court also found th at appellant violated
C ondition T. Following the punishment phase of the hearing , t he trial cou r t adju d icated appell a nt ’s guilt and sentenced appellant to imprisonment f or twenty

- five years in the aggravated robbery case and ten years in the evading arrest case.

3 In the aggravated robbery case, Condition T required appellant to participate in the Community Control Program/High Risk Case load; in the evading arrest case, Condition T required appellant to schedule an appointment with the probation department.
4 The State previously filed , but withdrew, motions to revoke probation or proceed with an adjudication of guilt in each case . A fter the State withdrew the motions, the trial court signed an order modifying appellant’s community supervision by adding conditions in the aggravated robbery case .– 3

– C OMMUNITY S UPERVISION V IOLATIONS In his first issue, appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash because the State’s alleg ations of community supervision violations were impermissibly vague. In his second issue, appellant complains the trial court erred in finding he violated community supervision C ondition T in the aggravated robbery case because the State previously alleg e d the violation and the tri al court thereafter modified the conditions of his community sup ervision

. A ppellant generally contends the allegations of community supervision violations wer e too vague and in definite , but he addresses only Conditions F, 5 L, 6 and R 7 in his brief

. A ppellant has
not asserted any error relating to violation s of Condition s P or Q , 8 which also were bases for the trial court’s decision to proceed with an adjudicat ion of guilt

. Proof of a single violation of community supervision is sufficient to support a trial court’s decision to revoke community supervision , see G arcia v. State , 387 S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) ; Dansby v. State , 468 S.W.3d 225, 231 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2015, no pet.) , and we must affirm a trial court’ s judgment if an appellant does not challenge each ground on which the trial court revoked community supervision. See Moore v. State , 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980);
Guerrero v. State , 554 S.W.3d 268, 274 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th D ist.] 2018, no pet.); Alb olaez

v. State , No. 05

- 09

- 01355

- C R , 2011 WL 477914, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Feb. 11, 2011, no

5 Appellant complains the Co ndition F allegation that appellant “failed to work fai t hfull y at suitable employment as ordered by the Cou r t” did not spe c i f

y what sort of employment was suitable, how long appellant had to secure employment, and what constituted “faithful” work to find employment.
6 Appellant asserts the Condition L allegation that appellant did not “complete Community Service h ours as directed” fai led to specify the hours required and when appellant had to complete them.
7 Appellant contends the Condition R allegation that appellant “did not attend and complete Thinking for a Change” failed to specify a deadline for taking and completing the program . 8 Condition P required appellant not to “ possess, consume or purchase any alcoholic beverages, or illegal controlled substances during the term of Supervision , ” and the State alleged in its motion s to revoke probation or proceed with an adjudication of guilt that:

[appellant] did violate condition [P] in that s(he) did possess, consume, purchase illegal controlled substances. On 7/19/16 , [appellant’s] vehi c le was s earched pursuant to a sea r ch warra nt and a clear plastic bag containing marijuana was found in the trunk. Durin g [appellant’s] arrest, a search was conducted and 3 firea r ms and methamphetamine and cocaine [were] also found. Condition Q required appellant to “ attend and compl e te IOP [Intensive Outpatient Program] as directed , ” and the State’s motions alleged that “[appellant] did violate condition [Q] in that he did not attend and complete IOP as directed.”– 4

–

pet.) (not designated for publication) . B ecause appellant has not challenged each violation supporting the trial court’s decision to rev oke community supervision and adjudicate guilt , we must affirm the trial court’s judgments

. See Moore , 605 S.W.2d at 926; Guerrero , 554 S.W.3d at 274

. For the same reason, we need not consider appellant’s second issue challenging a violation of Condition T as a basis supporting the trial court’s decision to adjudicate guilt in the aggravated

r obbery case . See Guerrero , 554 S.W.3d at 274; Ross v. State , No. 05

- 15

- 00351

- CR, 2016 WL 929277, at *7 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Mar. 11, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see also T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.1. Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s first and second issue s . C ONFRONTATION C LAUSE In the revocation hearing, the State relied on a summary of appellant’s Dallas County Probation Department file to prove he violated conditions of his community supervision. The records were authenticated by the testimony of Melody Cash

- Butler, a Dallas County probation

o fficer who had direct involvement supervising appellant. In his third issue, appellant contends the trial court erred in admitting the summary over his objection under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because the summary contained records created, and statements made, by witnesses other than Cash

- Butler. Appellant asserts the error was harmful because there is “little chance” the trial court did not consider the file in either finding appellant violated conditions of his community supervision or a ssessing his punishment. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right .

. . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” U.S. C ONST
. a mend. VI . Ad mission of a hearsay statement made by a non

- testifying declarant violates the Sixth Amendment if the statement was testimonial and– 5

–

the defendant did not have a prior opportunity to cross

- examine the witness. Crawford v. Washington , 5 41 U.S. 36 , 68 ( 2004); Wall v. State , 184 S.W.3d 730, 734 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). In a line of unpublished cases, this Court has concluded the right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment does not apply during revocation proceedings. See Roberts v. State , No. 05

- 16

- 00338

- CR, 2017 WL 461354, at *3 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Jan. 24, 2017, pet. dism’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ; Preston v. State , No. 05

- 14

- 01131

- CR, 2015 WL 4241406, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Dallas July 14, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Riley v.
State , No. 05

- 13

- 00900

- CR, 2014 WL 1856845, at *3 (Tex. App.

— Dallas May 8, 2014, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Gutierrez v. State , No. 05

- 11

- 01380

- CR, 2013 WL 3533549, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas July 12, 2013, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication). By its own terms, the Confrontation Clause applies only to criminal prosecutions, and a probation revocation , whether it follows “regular” probation or deferred adjudication probation , i s not a stage of criminal prosecutions. See Roberts , 2017 WL 461354, at * 2

– 3 ; Gutierrez , 2013 WL 3533549, at *1 (citing Wisser v. State , 350 S.W.3d 161, 164 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2011, no pet.); Trevino v. State , 218 S.W.3d 234, 239 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14 th Dist. ] 2007 , no pet.); Smart v. State , 153 S.W.3d 118, 121 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont 2004, pet. ref’d)). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in admitting the summary of appellant’s probation file over appellant’s Confrontation Clause objection. We overrule appellant’s third issue. We affirm the trial court’s judgments adjudicating guilt.

/Ada Brown/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
Publish T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b) 180524 F

. P05– 6

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT
PETER EGHOSASERE OLABODE, Appellant No. 05

- 18

- 00524

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F14

- 15563

- J. Opinion delivered by Justice Brown; Justices Schen ck and Pedersen, III participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered this 2 nd day of May, 2019.– 7

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

PETER EGHOSASERE OLABODE, Appellant
No. 05

- 18

- 00526

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F14

- 55950

- J. Opinion delivered by Justice Brown; Justices Schenck and Pedersen, III participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered this 2nd day of May, 2019.