No. 04-07-00650-CR
Delivered and Filed: April 9, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH
Appeal From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2004-CR-0830, Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding. Affirmed.
Sitting: CATHERINE STONE, Justice, SANDEE BRYAN MARION, Justice, REBECCA SIMMONS, Justice.
Opinion by: SANDEE BRYAN MARION, Justice.
Defendant, Michael Saenz, pled no contest to one count of indecency with a child. The trial court placed defendant on deferred adjudication community supervision for a term of ten years. The State later filed a Second Motion to Enter Adjudication of Guilt and Revoke Community Supervision, alleging eleven distinct violations of his community supervision. The trial court adjudicated defendant guilty and assessed punishment at fifteen years' confinement. We affirm.
DISCUSSION
At the revocation hearing, defendant orally moved to quash one of the alleged violations of his community supervision on the grounds that the notice paragraph failed to specify the manner and means of the alleged violation. In his first issue on appeal, defendant contends the trial court's erroneous denial of his motion to quash violated his due process right to notice. The State counters that because the motion to quash was made orally, it violated the writing requirement found in Article 27.10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, preserved nothing for review. "All motions to set aside an indictment or information and all special pleas and exceptions shall be in writing." Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 27.10 (Vernon 2006). Because this rule applies to motions to quash, an oral motion to quash all or part of an indictment preserves nothing for our review. Faulks v. State, 528 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex.Crim.App. 1975); State v. Abrego, 974 S.W.2d 177, 179 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1998, no pet.). Here, defendant made only an oral motion to quash the allegedly defective notice paragraph, and never reduced the motion to writing, as required by article 27.10. Therefore, defendant's first issue is not properly before this court for appellate review. Of the eleven violations alleged by the State, the trial court found eight to be "true." In his second issue on appeal, defendant argues that because the State failed to specify the manner and means of one of the alleged violations, he was unable to prepare and present evidence to defend himself against any of the alleged violations. However, because defendant does not challenge the evidence supporting the "true" findings on the remaining seven alleged violations, we cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion in adjudicating him guilty and revoking his community supervision. See Gobell v. State, 528 S.W.2d 223, 224 (Tex.Crim.App. 1975) (proof of any one of the alleged violations is sufficient to support the trial court's order). CONCLUSION
We overrule defendant's issues on appeal and affirm the trial court's judgment.