Affirmed as Modified; Opinion Filed January 17, 2013.
In The
Qlourt of ppat
Jfift Itritt of JJxa at afta
No. 05-12-00609-CR
No. 05-12-00610-CR
LACEDRICK LASHAWN SMITH, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial 1)istrict Court
Dallas County, Texas
I iial Court Cause Nos 1 10-60836-S, F10-60837-S
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices FitzGerald, Fillmore, and Evans
Opinion by Justice Evans
Lacedrick Lashawn Smith appeals from the adjudication of his guilt for aggravated
assault with a deadly weapon and continuous violence against the family. See TEx. PENAL CODE
ANN. § 22.02(a)(2), 25.11(a) (West 2011). In six points of error, appellant contends the
judgments should be modified to correct several errors. We modify the trial court’s judgments
and affirm as modified. The background of the cases and the evidence admitted at trial are well
known to the parties, and we therefore limit recitation of the facts. We issue this memorandum
opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.4 because the law to be applied in the
case is well settled.
After appellant waived a jury. he pleaded guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly
weapon. a machete, and continuous violence against his family, and pleaded true to one
enhancement paragraph. Pursuant to plea agreements, the trial court deferred adjudicating guilt.
placed appellant on six years’ conununity supervision in each case. and assessed a $3,000 fine in
the aggravated assault case. The State later moved to adjudieate guilt, alleging appellant violated
several conditions of his community supervision. Appellant pleaded not true to the allegations.
Following a hearing, the trial court found some of the allegations true and adjudicated appellant
guilty in each ease. The court assessed punishment at fourteen years’ imprisonment on the
aggravated assault convietion, and assessed seven years’ imprisonment on the continuous
violence conviction.
In his first four points of error, appellant contends the judgments should be modified to
show he pleaded not true to the allegations in the motions to adjudicate and that there were no
plea bargain agreements. The State agrees with the requested modifications. The record shows
appellant pleaded not true to the allegations in the State’s motion to adjudicate. The judgments.
however, state appellant pleaded true to the motions and recites plea bargain terms. We sustain
appellant’s first four points of enot We modify the trial court’s judgments to show the pleas to
the motions to adjudicate were not true, and the terms of plea bargain are “none.” See TEx. R.
App. P. 43.2(b); Bigky t’. State, 865 S.W.2d 26,27—28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asbeny v. State,
813 S.W.2d 526, 529—30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d).
In his fifth and sixth points of error, appellant contends the judgments should be modified
to show the specific conditions he was found to have violated. The State agrees with the
requested modifications. In its amended motions to adjudicate, the State alleged eight violations,
including testing positive for marijuana and cocaine on three different dates and being delinquent
-2-
on commumty supervision fees, During the hearing on the motions, the trial judge stated he
would not revoke appellant’s community supervision and adjudicate his guilt based upon the
drug tests or fees because he had already dealt with those allegations in a previous hearing and
ordered appellant into drug treatment. The trial court heard evidence regarding the remaining
four allegations, after which the trial judge stated, “1 find the allegations to be true.”
The judgments recite the trial court found appellant violated the terms and conditions of
his community supervision as set out in the State’s amended motions to adjudicate. Because the
record shows the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty based on only four of the alleged
violations, the judgments are not correct. We sustain appellant’s fifth and sixth points of error.
We modify the judgments to show the trial court found appellant violated conditions (d), (I), (s),
and (w) of his community supervision. See Tux. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley, 865 S.W.2d at 27—
28; Asherrv, 81.3 S.W.2d at 529—30.
As modified, we affirm the trial
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEx. R. App. P. 47
1 20609F.U05
Qloiirt of Ztppca
if ittlj itritt of Etxa at at1a
JUDGMENT
LACEDRICK LASI-IAWN SMITH, Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District
Appellant Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
El 0-60$36-S).
No. 05—1 2-00609-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Evans.
Justices FitzGerald and Fillmore
THE STATE OFF EXAS, Appellee participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODiFIED as
follows:
The section entitled “Plea to Motion to Adjudicate” is modified to show “Not True”
The section entitled “Terms of Plea Bargain” is modified to show “NoneS”
The section entitled “(5) While on community supervision, Defendant violated the terms
and conditions of community supervision” is modified to show “(5) While on community
supervision, Defendant violated conditions (d), (1), (s), and (w) of community supervision.”
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.
Judgment entered January 17, 2013.
Qlourt of tppat
if ittj itract of Z!Eexa at afta
JUDGMENT
LACEDRICK LASHAWN SMITH, Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District
Appellant Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
F I 0-60837-S).
No. 05-12-0061 0-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Evans,
Justices FitzGerald and Fillmore
THE STATE OF TEXAS. Appellee pa rti c pati rig.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIEI) as
to!! o\vs:
The section entitled “Plea to Motion to Adjudicate” is modified to show “Not True.”
The section entitled “Terms of Plea Bargain” is modified to show “None.”
The section entitled “(5) While on community supervision, Defendant violated the terms
and conditions ol community supervision” is modified to show “(5) While on community
supervision, Decendant violated conditions (ci), (1), (s), and (w) of cornnmnity supervision.”
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.
Judgment entered January 17, 2013.
ENS