expressly makes cumulative the several punishments. Ex parte Applewhite, 729 S.W.2d 706, 708 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). The terms of any cumu-lation order must be reflected in the judgment. Tex.Code CRIM. PROC. Ann. Art. 42.01 § 1(19) (Vernon Supp.2004). This order must be in writing. See Young v. State, 579 S.W.2d 10 (Tex.Crim.App.1979) (emphasis added). Moreover, when a conflict exists between a trial court’s written order and its oral pronouncement at trial, the written order controls. See Ablon v. State, 537 S.W.2d 267, 269 (Tex.Crim.App.1976) (stating written probation revocation order controlled over court’s oral pronouncement at hearing); Eubanks v. State, 599 S.W.2d 815, 817 (Tex.Crim.App.1980) (same); Hubbard v. State, 896 S.W.2d 359, 361 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); Normand v. State, 686 S.W.2d 275, 277-78
holding that written judgment controlled over oral pronouncement holding written judgment must conform to oral pronouncement holding that in cases of direct conflict between a courts oral pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment the oral pronouncement controls holding that oral pronouncement prevailed over the written order holding that the trial courts oral pronouncement must conform to the written judgment