The 7-Year Wait: How ‘Due Diligence’ Limits and Oral Pronouncements Apply to Community Supervision Revocations
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Jewell, 14-24-00612-CR, February 03, 2026.
On appeal from Unknown
Synopsis
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s revocation of community supervision, holding that the State need only prove a single violation of the conditions—here, the failure to provide written verification of employment—to sustain a revocation order. The court further clarified that the statutory affirmative defense of “due diligence” is strictly limited to failure-to-report and failure-to-remain-in-a-specified-place allegations, and it modified the judgment to delete a fine that was included in the written order but never orally pronounced at sentencing.
Relevance to Family Law
While Parrish originates from a criminal courtroom, its implications for Texas family law practitioners are profound, particularly in the context of enforcement proceedings and contempt hearings. In SAPCR or child support enforcement litigation, the “single violation” rule mirrors the standards often applied when a respondent is placed on community supervision for contempt. Furthermore, the court’s strict adherence to the oral pronouncement rule serves as a critical reminder that in any quasi-criminal proceeding—including those involving the deprivation of liberty for failure to pay support—the written judgment must strictly conform to the court’s verbal orders at the conclusion of the hearing.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Leslie Parrish was originally sentenced to six years’ confinement for intoxication manslaughter in 2010 but was subsequently granted “shock” probation for a ten-year term. In 2016, the State moved to revoke her probation, alleging she failed to report, failed to provide written verification of employment, and failed to pay various fees. Although a capias warrant was issued immediately, it remained unexecuted for over seven years, finally being served in 2024—nearly four years after her original probation period would have expired. At the revocation hearing, a community supervision officer testified that while Parrish had provided employment verification in some months, she failed to do so consistently, occasionally claiming her supervisor no longer provided stubs and failing to provide bank statements as an alternative. The trial court found the State’s allegations true, revoked her probation, and sentenced her to six years’ confinement, including a $100 fine in the written judgment that was not mentioned during the oral sentencing.
Issues Decided
The Court of Appeals addressed three primary issues: first, whether the appellant established an affirmative defense of due diligence regarding the State’s seven-year delay in executing the warrant; second, whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support the revocation based on the failure to maintain and verify employment; and third, whether the trial court erred by including a fine in the written judgment that was not orally pronounced.
Rules Applied
The court relied on Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 42A.751(l), which preserves a trial court’s jurisdiction to revoke community supervision after the term expires if a motion was filed and a capias issued before expiration. Regarding the “due diligence” defense, the court applied Article 42A.756, which provides an affirmative defense specifically for violations involving a failure to report or a failure to remain in a specified place. The court also cited Rickels v. State, emphasizing the preponderance of the evidence standard in revocation proceedings, and Garcia v. State, which establishes that proof of a single violation is sufficient to support a trial court’s decision to revoke. Finally, the court applied the long-standing rule that when there is a conflict between the oral pronouncement of a sentence and the written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.
Application
The legal narrative in Parrish centers on the limited scope of statutory defenses. The appellant argued that the State’s seven-year delay in arresting her triggered the due-diligence defense. However, the court systematically dismantled this by noting that even if the State failed to exercise due diligence in locating her for the “failure to report” allegation, that defense does not extend to other conditions of supervision, such as the requirement to provide written verification of employment. The court looked at the testimony of the supervision officer, who confirmed that Parrish failed to provide the required documentation on multiple occasions. Because the trial court found all allegations true, and because the employment verification violation was not subject to the due-diligence defense, the appellate court determined it did not need to reach the merits of the State’s efforts to find her. The single, proven violation of failing to provide paperwork was a sufficient anchor for the revocation.
Holding
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking community supervision because the evidence was sufficient to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Parrish failed to provide written verification of employment. This single violation rendered the “due diligence” defense moot as to the overall revocation.
The court further held that the written judgment must be modified to delete the $100 fine. Because the trial court failed to include the fine in its oral pronouncement of the sentence, the fine could not be legally imposed via the written judgment.
Practical Application
For the family law litigator, Parrish is a cautionary tale regarding the “all-or-nothing” nature of enforcement defenses. When representing a client in an enforcement action where the client is on community supervision, practitioners must realize that successfully defending against “failure to report” via due diligence or “failure to pay” via an inability-to-pay defense is insufficient if a technical, administrative violation—like failing to provide a pay stub—is also alleged and proven. In the strategic defense of a contempt motion, counsel must treat every technical requirement of the community supervision order as a potential “silver bullet” for the movant.
Checklists
Defending an Enforcement Revocation
- Identify Non-Diligence Violations: Determine which alleged violations are subject to the Article 42A.756 due-diligence defense (reporting) and which are not (employment verification, fees, etc.).
- Audit Documentation: Review the client’s history of “written verifications.” If the order requires written proof of employment, verbal confirmation to a supervisor is legally insufficient.
- Challenge Sufficiency: Even under the preponderance standard, ensure the State/Movant provides specific dates and instances of failure rather than generalized testimony.
Preserving Oral Pronouncement Errors
- Compare the Record: Always compare the court reporter’s transcript of the sentencing/ruling with the final written order or decree.
- Identify Discrepancies: Look for “hidden” costs, fines, or conditions in the written judgment—such as attorney’s fees or interest—that were not specifically stated on the record.
- Motion to Reform: If a discrepancy exists, use Parrish to move for a judgment nunc pro tunc or a modification of the judgment to match the oral pronouncement.
Citation
Parrish v. State, No. 14-24-00612-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 3, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
In a high-stakes custody battle, a criminal revocation—even for a technicality—can be weaponized as evidence of a “material and substantial change in circumstances” or as a direct threat to the “best interest of the child.” A litigator can use the Parrish holding to argue that a parent’s failure to comply with even the most administrative of court-ordered conditions (like employment verification) demonstrates a chronic inability to follow court orders. This can be used to justify supervised visitation or to disqualify a parent from being named a managing conservator. Furthermore, the 7-year delay in this case underscores that a “pending” warrant or a “stale” motion to revoke is a ticking time bomb; family law practitioners should routinely run background checks on opposing parties to identify unexecuted capias warrants that can be used as leverage in negotiations or as a bombshell at trial.
~~58b4b8f4-6ef4-4941-a6e0-eecc68f033b4~~
Share this content:
