AFFIRMED as MODIFIED and Opinion Filed January 27, 2020 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-00131-CR TAIWAN CHANCE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F-1770514-R 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Whitehill, and Schenck Opinion by Justice Whitehill After finding several probation violations true, the trial cour t adjudicated appellant guilty of assault against a family member, found an enhancement paragr aph true, and assessed punishment at eleven years in prison. In five issues, appellant argue s that: (i) the judgment should be modified to accurately describe the offense and the allegations to which he pled true and not true, (ii) the court abused its discretion by admitting an unauthenticated jail call, and (iii) the unconstitutional portion of the time payment fee assessed should be deleted. In a cross-point, the State asks us to modify the deferred adju dication order and judgment to reflect the court’s affirmative family violence finding and to delete the reference to a deadly weapon finding that was not made.–2– The State concedes that appellant should not have been charged the time payment fee. The jail call was admitted to estab lish that appellant committed a new assault, but that was just one of several alleged probation viola tions and the trial court found that it was “not true.” Appellant pled true to four allegations, but only one ground is required to su pport the revocation order. Therefore, we need not reach the jail call’s admissibility. The record supports all of the requested judgment modifications . Accordingly, we modify the deferred adjudication order and the judgment and affirm as modified.
I. B ACKGROUND Appellant was charged with an assa ult family violence offense a nd pled guilty pursuant to a plea bargain. He also pled tr ue to the enhancement. Consist ent with the plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt, placed appellant on commu nity supervision for four years, and ordered him to pay a $500 fin e and $299 in court costs. The State later moved to revoke appellant’s community supervisi on and adjudicate him guilty. The motion was subsequently amended and included seven allegations. Appellant pled true to four of the seven allegations and “not true” to the rem aining three. The court found two allegations not true: (i) that appellant committed a new offens e while on probation and (ii) that appellant was delinquent in paying $299 in court costs. The co urt found the remaining allegations
true. After hearing testimony for punishment purposes, the court revo ked appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and found the en hancement paragraph true. Punishment was assessed at eleven years in prison.–3– II. A NALYSIS A. First Issue : Did the trial court erroneously ad mit an unauthenticated jail c all? The first allegation in the State ’s motion to revoke charged th at appellant committed a new assault while on probation. Over appellant’s objection, the St ate introduced a jail call allegedly made by appellant in which the speaker says, “I beat that bitch up for turning up at my house unannounced.” After hearing additio nal evidence, the court fou nd the allegation “not true.” Appellant’s first issue argues that the jail call was not authe nticated and was therefore erroneously admitted. But we need not reach this issue because (i) other unchallenged grounds support revoking probation and (i i) the trial court found the a llegation untrue anyway. Se e T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.1. The new assault allegation was but one of seven alleged probati on violations. A finding of a single violation of commun ity supervision is sufficient to support revocation. See Sanchez v

. State , 603 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980). Appe llant does not challenge the court’s findings on any of the other allegations and therefore the revocation order stands. See Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191, 193–94 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (app ellant must successfully challenge all fi ndings that support a revocation o rder). Moreover, the court found the all egation to whic h this evidence pertained “not true.” Under these circumstances, we need not consider whether the evi dence was erroneously admitted. Se e T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.1. We resolve appellant’s fi rst issue against him. B. Second, Third, and Fourth Issues and Cross-Point: Should t he judgment be reformed? Yes, because the record supports the requested judgment modific ations. Appellant argues that the judgment should be reformed to reflec t that: (i) appellant pled “not true” to allegations A, D, a nd H, (ii) the court found all egations A and H “not true,” and (iii) the description for the offense is unclear because the notation “Assault Bodily Injury Family–4– Violence Enhance” does not clearly refer to the previous convic tion alleged for purposes of classifying the degree of offens e rather than the previous conv iction alleged to enhance the punishment range. The State agr ees that the judgment should be so modified. In addition, the State requests that the deferred adjudication order and judgment be modified to reflect the trial court’s affirmative family violen ce finding and to delete the deadly weapon finding. We are authorized to reform a judgment to make the record speak the truth when we have the necessary information to do so. Bigley v. State , 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Here, the record reflects that (i) appellant plead “not true” to allegations A, D, and H, (ii) the court found allegations A and H “not true,” (iii) the “enha nce” description in the offense is not
necessary 1 , and (iv) the court did not make a deadly weapon finding but d id make a family violence finding. We therefore sustain appellant’s second, third, and fo urth issues as well as the State’s cross-point and modify the judgment accordingly. C. Fifth Issue: Should the time payment fee be assessed? Appellant’s fifth issue argues that a $25 time payment fee shou ld not have been included in the bill of costs and is unconstitutional. We need not cons ider the constitutionality of the fee, however, because the State concedes the fee should not have bee n assessed in this case. We therefore sustain the portion of appellant’s fifth issue compla ining that the fee should not have been assessed and modify the judgment to delete the time paymen t fee from costs assessed.

1 The indictment alleges a prior family violence conviction, inc reasing the degree of the charged offense from a class A misdem eanor to a third degree felony. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE §§ 22.01(a)(1), (b)(2). The indict ment contains one prior felon y conviction which increases the punishment range from that of a third degree felony to that of a second degree felony. T EX

. P ENAL C ODE §12.42(a).–5– III. C ONCLUSION We modify the deferred adjudicatio n order to reflect that the c ourt did not make a deadly weapon finding, but did make a family violence finding. We als o modify the judgment as follows: (i) to reflect that a ppellant plead “not true” to allegations A , D, and H, (ii) to reflect that the court found allegations A and H “not true,” (iii) to delete the “enha nce” description in the offense, (iv) to reflect that the court did not make a deadly weapon finding, but did make a family violence finding, and (v) to delete the $25 time payment fees from costs assessed. As modified, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2 (b) 190131F.U05 /Bill Whitehill/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE–6– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
TAIWAN CHANCE, Appellant
No. 05-19-00131-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F-1770514-R. Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill. Justices Bridges and Sch enck participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of t his date, the trial court’s d eferred adjudication order is MODIFIED to reflect that the court ma de a family violence finding but d id not make a deadly weapon finding. The judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows: The deadly weapon finding is deleted and replaced with a family violence finding, the judgment will now reflect that appellant plead “not true” to allegations A, D, and H and the court found allegations A and H “not true,” and the $25 time payment fee is deleted from the costs assessed.
As REFORMED , the judgment is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered January 27, 2020