TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
NO. 538957, HONORABLE BRENDA J. KENNEDY, JUDGE PRESIDING
Appellant first complains that the trial court did not properly admonish him regarding the range of punishment as required by article 26.13. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13(a)(1) (West Supp. 2000). Appellant's reliance on this statute is misplaced, since it does not apply to misdemeanors. See Empy v. State, 571 S.W.2d 526, 529-30 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). There is no due process requirement that a misdemeanor defendant be admonished by the trial court as to the range of punishment. See Tatum v. State, 861 S.W.2d 27, 29 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, pet. ref'd). There is no showing that appellant was not aware of the consequences of his plea. Point of error one is overruled.
Appellant's second point urges that the judgment is ambiguous as to whether he was convicted or acquitted. In fact, there is no ambiguity in the judgment. It clearly and unambiguously states that the court adjudged him guilty. The ambiguity on which appellant relies appears in the court's docket sheet, on which the judge checked a box indicating a finding of not guilty but then noted that punishment was assessed at 130 days incarceration.
A docket sheet is a memorandum made for the court's and clerk's benefit. See First Nat'l Bank v. Birnbaum, 826 S.W.2d 189, 191 (Tex. App.--Austin 1992, no writ) (op. on reh'g). A docket sheet lacks the formality of an order or judgment, is considered inherently unreliable, and generally forms no part of the record that an appellate court will consider. See id. A docket sheet cannot be used to contradict or prevail over a final judicial order. See N-S-W Corp. v. Snell, 561 S.W.2d 798, 799 (Tex. 1977). A trial court's final judgment is presumed to be correct in the absence of contrary evidence. See Breazeale v. State, 683 S.W.2d 446, 450 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (op. on reh'g). Finding no ambiguity in the court's judgment, and unpersuaded by appellant's argument that the judgment should be set aside because of an ambiguity in the docket sheet, we overrule point of error two.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Lee Yeakel, Justice
Before Justices Jones, Yeakel and Patterson
Affirmed
Filed: May 4, 2000
Do Not Publish