In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-02-00044-CV ______________________________
RODNEY AND WILLIE PHILLIPS, Appellants
V.
LOWELL COLEMAN, PROGRESSIVE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AND PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANIES), Appellees
On Appeal from the 129th Judicial District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court No. 2001-10130
Before Morriss, C.J., Grant and Ross, JJ. Opinion by Justice Ross
O P I N I O N
Rodney and Willie Phillips have filed a notice of appeal from the dismissal of their lawsuit. This case was transferred from the First Court of Appeals to this Court pursuant to a docket equalization order of the Supreme Court of Texas.
According to the notice of appeal, the judgment was signed November 2, 2001. We do not know whether a motion for new trial was filed, but if so, the record was due no later than March 4, 2002. No record has been requested or filed. There is no indication of indigence, and despite letters sent by this Court and by the First Court of Appeals in Houston before transfer, counsel has made no effort to pursue this appeal either by paying filing fees or by taking any other action in this case.
On June 24, 2002, we wrote counsel and warned him that, if he did not cure these defects and take some action in this case within ten days, his appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b),(c).
Counsel has neither responded nor taken any action in this appeal.
The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Donald R. Ross
Justice
Date Submitted: July 22, 2002
Date Decided: July 23, 2002
Do Not Publish
ption Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
|
|
In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-11-00020-CR
______________________________
CLYDE PHILLIPS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 114th Judicial District Court
Smith County, Texas
Trial Court No. 114-1027-09
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Clyde Phillips appeals[1] a trial courts judgment adjudicating his guilt for possession of a controlled substance and sentencing him to four years incarceration.[2] In a single point of error, Phillips complains that the trial courts judgment[3] incorrectly reflect[s] that Mr. Phillips entered a plea of true to the entirety of the Motion to Adjudicate. Phillips argues that although he pled true to several allegations of community supervision violations, he pled not true as to one allegation. He urges this Court to reform the portion of the judgment stating Plea to Motion to Adjudicate: True. The State has agreed that the Court has the authority to correct this mistake in the judgment. We modify the judgment accordingly.
The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure give this Court authority to reform judgments to make the record speak the truth when the matter has been called to our attention by any source. Tex. R. App. P. 43.2; French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Rhoten v. State, 299 S.W.3d 349, 356 (Tex. App.Texarkana 2009, no pet.). The record reflects that Phillips pled true to the following allegations in the States motion to adjudicate: commission of the new offense of fleeing from a police officer, change of address without permission, failure to pay court-appointed counsel fees, failure to pay for urinalysis fees, failure to pay monthly supervision fees, failure to pay restitution, failure to pay substance abuse questionnaire fee, and failure to pay Crimestoppers fee.[4] However, with respect to the allegation that Phillips attempted to alter or falsify drug test results by flushing with water, a plea of not true was entered.
We hereby modify the trial court's judgment to reflect Phillips plea of true to the allegations contained within paragraphs II, III, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, and XII of the States motion to adjudicate and his plea of not true to the allegation contained within paragraph VI.
As modified, we affirm the trial courts judgment.
Bailey C. Moseley
Justice
Date Submitted: June 15, 2011
Date Decided: June 16, 2011
Do Not Publish
[1]Originally appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See Tex. Govt Code Ann. § 73.001 (Vernon 2005). We are unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Twelfth Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 41.3.
[2]Phillips presents a single brief addressing this case and the trial courts adjudication of guilt for a separate offense of possession of marihuana. The issues and arguments are the same for both convictions, and we reach the same conclusion in both cases. Please see our opinion of instant date, Phillips v. State, cause number 061100021CR.
[3]Phillips does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting revocation. A plea of true to even one allegation is sufficient to support a judgment revoking community supervision. Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979).
[4]The allegations to which Phillips pled true were contained within paragraphs II, III, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, and XII in the States motion to adjudicate guilt. The State abandoned allegations contained in paragraphs IV and V. Phillips pled not true to Paragraph VI.