### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-15-00433- CR

Hect or Hato LaBoy, Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E CO UNTY COURT AT LAW NO . 4 O F TRAVIS CO UNTY NO. D-1 -DC- 13- 2046 42, H ONO RAB LE MI KE DENTON, J UDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Hec tor Hato L aBoy pleade d g uilty to a char g e of assault with family violence. See Tex. Penal Code § 22.01(b)( 2). The trial court acc epted L aB oy ’s plea , found him g uilty , sentenc ed him to three y ears ’ i m p risonment probate d for five y ear s, and place d him on community supervision. The State later filed a motion to revoke L aB oy ’s community supervision, alleg ing that L aB oy had tested p o s i t i v e for coca ine and marihuana , had failed to submit a urine

or breath spec i m en at t h e direc tion of his supervision office r, had committed a terror istic threa t by threatening to kill s omeone, a nd had committed cr iminal mis chief by slashing a vehicle’ s tires. At a hear ing on t he State’s revoc ation motion, L aB oy pleade d true to the alleg ations that he had t ested positive for drug s and that he had failed to submit a urine or breath specimen as required and plea ded not true to the r emaining alleg ations. Following the hea ring , the trial cour

t found the State’s alleg ations true, revoke d L aB oy ’s community supervision, and sentenc ed him to three y ear sin pr ison. I n two issues on appea l, L aB oy contends that the e vidence is insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that he had violated the conditions of his community supervision by committing

a terror istic threat and that his trial counsel was inef fe ct i v e. W e will aff

irm the trial court’s judgme nt. A trial court’s deci s i o n t o revoke community supervision must be supported by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e. Hack er v. State , 389 S.W .3d 860, 864–65 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). We revie w the trial court’s revoc ation decision for an abuse of discretion, b ea ri n g i n mind that the trial court is the sole j u d ge of the cre dibilit y of the witnesses and the weig ht to be g iven to their testimony

. Id. at 865. A plea of true, standing alone, is sufficie nt to support the revoc ation of community supervision. See Tapia v. State , 462 S.W .3d 29, 31 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015). I n addition, the violatio n of a single condition of community supervision is sufficie nt to support a

revoc ation deter

mination. See Sanchez v. State , 603 S.W .2d 869, 871 (Tex. Crim. App. [P anel Op.] 1980); Jones v. State , 472 S.W .3d 322, 324 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2015, pet. ref ’d) (mem. op.). Acc ording ly , “to preva il o n ap p eal, the defe ndant must succe ssfully challeng e all of the fi n d i n gs ” that support the trial court’s revoc ation decision. Silber v. State , 371 S.W .3d 605, 6 1 1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2012, no pet.).

I n his fi rs t issue, L aB oy contends that the evidenc e is insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that he committed a terror istic threa t. However, we need not rea ch this issue, beca

use L aB oy pleade d true to three other all egations that he had violated the terms of his community

supervision. See Diaz v. Stat e , No. 03-15-00539-CR, 2016 WL 1084398, at *3 (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 17, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not desig nated for publ ication) (declining

2to addre ss appellant’ s challeng es t o t en of nineteen g rounds for revoc ation when appellant had

pleade d true to other nine alleg ations).

L aB oy does not deny that he pleade d true to these three alleg ations. I nstead, he argues that the trial court stated during his revoc ation hear ing that the court was g oing to revoke his community supervision on the basis of the alleg ed new offe nses and not on the basis of his substance

use. Howeve r, even if the trial court did make such a statement, the written judgme nt, in which the trial court f

inds all of the State’s alleg ations true and lists them as rea sons f or re vocation, contr ols

over the court’s oral comments. See Coffey v. State , 979 S.W .2d 326, 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (“The se case s all involved wr itten probation revoc ation order s based upon g rounds which

wer e inconsistent with the oral pronounce ment of revoc ation. The basis for revoc ation stated in the written order controll ed.”) ; Leal v. State , No. 03-15-00095- CR, 2015 WL 8604431, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 10, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not desig nated f or publication) ( “I t is well

s e ttled that a written order revoking community supervision controls over the o r a l p r o n o u n c e me n t. ” ) ; Ex parte Bolivar , 386 S.W .3d 338, 345–46 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2012, no pet.) (“A written

o rd er re v oking community supervision controls over an oral pronounce ment by the t rial j udg e.”); Hubbard v. State , No. 03-97-00250- CR, 1998 WL 271046, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin May 29, 1998,

no pet.) (not desig nated for publication) (“[T]he c ourt, at the conclusion of the revoc ation hear ing, orally announce d that it was revoking on the first and second g rounds listed above. The written

o rder , howeve r, rec ites that the court found all three g rounds alleg ed by the State to be tru e. T h e court’s written order revoking community supervision controls over the o ra l p ronounce ment.”). Be cause L aB oy pleade d true to having urine specimens test positive for controlled substances on

3two separ ate occa sions and failing to submit a specimen as require d, we conclude that the trial court

did not abuse its discretion in revokingL aB oy ’s community supervision. I n his second issue, L aBoy contends that his trial counsel provided ineffe ctive assistance by failing to object to testimony that was hear say and violated L aB oy ’s rig ht to confr ontation under fede ral and state constitutional law. To p re v ail on his claim of ineffe ctive assistance of counsel, L aB oy must prove by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e that (1) his counsel’s perf ormanc e was defic ient and (2) his counsel’s defic ient perf ormanc e prejudice d him. See Ramirez

v. State , 301 S.W .3d 410, 415 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009, no pet.); see also Strickland v. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); Ex parte Ramirez , 280 S.W .3d 848, 852 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Even assuming wi t hout deciding that his counsel’s perf ormanc e was defic ient, L aB oy cannot show that this defic ient perf

ormanc e prejudice d him, beca use, as discussed above, L aB oy pleade d true to three of the State’s a lleg ations, and any one of those alleg ations would be sufficie nt to support the trial court’ s revoc ation decision.

Moreove r, the testimony about which L aB oy complains was cumulative of testimony alre ady prese nted. L aB oy argues that his c ounsel should ha ve objected to the following testimony from a police office r: “I

orig inally

started talking to J akuri [ a witness] and he was—informe d me of the criminal mischief act, and he was showing me the tires.” Howeve r, the office r had previously testified, without objection, that the dispatche r had infor med him that the re was criminal mischief in prog ress, that the office r had informed L aB oy that L aB oy was being investigated for cr i m inal mischief, and that the office r saw the vehicle with slashed tires when he arr ived at the scene . Be cause the complained- of testimony was cumulative of other testimony about which L aB oy

4has not complained, L aB oy has not shown that the result of his hea ring would have be en diffe rent had his co u n s el objected to the testimony

. See Saveik a v. State , No. 03-11-00070- CR, 2012 WL 2077679, at *9 (Tex. App.—Austin J une 8, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not desig nated for publication) (“B eca use the jury hear d some testimony char acte rizing the cats’ food as adequate, the trial cou rt could have rea sonably decide d that the omission of further such testimony was not prejudicia l.”). Acc ording ly , we ove rrule L aB oy ’s sec ond issue.

CONCLUSION We affir m the trial court’ s judgme nt revoking L aB oy ’s community supervision.

__________________________________________ Scott K. Field, Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices Pemberton a nd Field Affir med Filed: Jul y

21, 2016 Do Not Publish

5