ACCEPTED
06-14-00225-CR
SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS
TEXARKANA, TEXAS
5/21/2015 3:28:54 PM
DEBBIE AUTREY
CLERK
The State Requests Oral Argument
if Appellant Requests Oral Argument.
FILED IN
NOS. 06-14-00225-CR, 06-14-00226-CR, 6th COURT OF APPEALS
& 06-14-00227-CR TEXARKANA, TEXAS
5/21/2015 3:28:54 PM
DEBBIE AUTREY
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS Clerk
FOR THE SIXTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT TEXARKANA
________________________
ELIZABETH MENDOZA,
Appellant
vs.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
________________________
On appeal from the Criminal District Court. No. 6
of Dallas County, Texas
Cause Nos. F12-61870-X, F13-34344-X, & F13-40734-X
________________________
STATE’S BRIEF
________________________
Counsel of Record:
SUSAN HAWK LARISSA T. ROEDER
Criminal District Attorney Assistant District Attorney
Dallas County, Texas State Bar No. 24010357
133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB-19
Dallas, Texas 75207-4399
(214) 653-3627 (Phone)
(214) 653-3643 (Fax)
ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... i
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................... ii
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................................................... 1
STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................. 3
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................................................................................... 3
ARGUMENT....................................................................................................................... 3
Response to Appellant’s Sole Issue on Appeal ................................................................ 3
THE TRIAL COURT’S WRITTEN JUDGMENTS SHOULD BE
REFORMED TO CORRECTLY REFLECT THAT APPELLANT’S
PLEAS OF TRUE WERE ENTERED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF
PLEA BARGAIN AGREEMENTS. ........................................................................ 3
PRAYER ............................................................................................................................. 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND WORD-COUNT COMPLIANCE ........................... 5
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Abron v. State,
997 S.W.2d 281 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, pet. ref’d) ................................................... 4
Asberry v. State,
813 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d) ................................................... 4
Bigley v. State,
865 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) .......................................................................... 4
Nolan v. State,
39 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.) ..................................... 4
ii
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
The State of Texas submits this brief in response to the brief of appellant,
Elizabeth Mendoza.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A grand jury issued an indictment in cause number F12-61870-X, charging
appellant with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. (CR.1:13).1 On May 2,
2013, appellant pleaded guilty and was placed on two (2) years’ deferred
adjudication community supervision. (CR.1:35-36, 40-41). The State thereafter
filed a motion to proceed to an adjudication of guilt. (CR.1:53-54). On November
13, 2014, appellant entered a non-negotiated plea of true to the allegations in the
State’s motion.2 (CR.1:60). The trial court entered judgment adjudicating guilt
and assessed punishment at six (6) years’ imprisonment. (CR.1:56).
A grand jury issued an indictment in cause number F13-34344-X, charging
appellant with possession of a controlled substance less than one gram. (CR.2:7).
On July 2, 2014, appellant pleaded guilty to a lesser-included class A misdemeanor
offense and, in accordance with a negotiated plea agreement, the trial court placed
1
C.R.1 refers to the clerk’s record in cause number F12-61870-X (06-14-00225-CR);
CR.2 refers to the clerk’s record in cause number F13-34344-X (06-14-00226-CR); and
CR.3 refers to the clerk’s record in cause number F13-40734-X (06-14-00227-CR).
2
The clerk’s records on appeal do not contain the second half of any of appellant’s three
plea agreements. The State has brought the matter to the attention of the clerk of the
court, and has asked the District Clerk’s Office to supplement the clerk’s records on
appeal with complete copies of appellant’s November 13, 2014, plea agreement.
1
appellant on ten (10) months’ deferred adjudication community supervision.
(CR.2:19-22). The State thereafter filed a motion to proceed to an adjudication of
guilt. (CR.2:36-37). On November 13, 2014, appellant entered a non-negotiated
plea of true to the allegations in the State’s motion. (CR.2:44). The trial court
entered judgment adjudicating guilt and assessed punishment at one (1) year
confinement in the county jail. (CR.2:38-39).
A grand jury issued an indictment in cause number F13-40734-X, charging
appellant with unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. (CR.3:11). On May 2, 2013,
appellant pleaded guilty and on May 22, 2013, the trial court placed appellant on
two (2) years’ deferred adjudication community supervision. (CR.3:25, 34-36).
The State thereafter filed a motion to proceed to an adjudication of guilt.
(CR.3:47-48). On November 13, 2014, appellant entered a non-negotiated plea of
true to the allegations in the State’s motion. (CR.3:53). The trial court entered
judgment adjudicating guilt and assessed punishment at ten (10) months in the
state jail. (CR.3:50-51).
2
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The State filed motions to revoke appellant’s deferred adjudication
community supervision in three separate cases. Appellant entered a plea of true in
each case without the benefit of a plea bargain agreement. The trial court
adjudicated guilt and sentenced appellant to a term of confinement in each of the
three cases. All three of the court’s written judgments incorrectly reflect that the
sentences imposed were based on negotiated plea agreements.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
This Court should reform the written judgment in each of appellant’s cases
to correctly reflect that appellant entered a plea of true in each case without the
benefit of a plea bargain agreement.
ARGUMENT
Response to Appellant’s Sole Issue on Appeal
THE TRIAL COURT’S WRITTEN JUDGMENTS SHOULD BE
REFORMED TO CORRECTLY REFLECT THAT APPELLANT’S
PLEAS OF TRUE WERE ENTERED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT
OF PLEA BARGAIN AGREEMENTS.
The State agrees that the judgment in all three of appellant’s convictions
should be reformed to correctly reflect the appellant entered her pleas of true
without the benefit of a plea agreement.
3
Applicable Law
Where the record contains the necessary information to do so, the court on
appeal has the authority to modify incorrect judgments. Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b);
Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Abron v. State, 997
S.W.2d 281, 282 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, pet. ref’d). “An appellate court has the
power to correct and reform a trial court judgment ‘to make the record speak the
truth when it has the necessary data and information to do so, or make any
appropriate order as the law and nature of the case may require.’” Nolan v. State,
39 S.W.3d 697, 698 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (quoting
Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d)).
Application of Law to the Facts
The record in each of appellant’s cases reflect that appellant entered an
“open plea” of true. The judgments, however, each incorrectly show a plea
agreement to a term of confinement that matches the punishments actually imposed
by the trial court. Because this Court has the information to do so, the State
respectfully joins in appellant’s request that the judgment in each of her three cases
should be modified to show appellant entered an “open plea” to the allegations in
the State’s motions to proceed with an adjudication of guilt.
4
PRAYER
The State prays this Honorable Court will reform the judgments in cause
numbers F12-61870-X (06-14-00225-CR), F13-34344-X (06-14-00226-CR); and
F13-40734-X (06-14-00227-CR), and affirm as modified.
Respectfully submitted,
SUSAN HAWK LARISSA T. ROEDER
Criminal District Attorney Assistant District Attorney
State Bar No. 00791886 State Bar No. 24010357
Dallas County, Texas 133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB-19
Dallas, Texas 75207-4399
(214) 653-3627 (phone)
(214) 653-3643 (fax)
larissa.roeder@dallascounty.org
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND WORD-COUNT COMPLIANCE
A copy of this brief has been served on Bruce Anton, attorney for appellant,
2311 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 250, Dallas, Texas 75201, via electronic mail at
ba@sualaw.com on May 21, 2015. I further certify that this document contains
1,069 words, inclusive of all contents.
Larissa T. Roeder
5
Elizabeth Silva Mendoza v. State
Combined Opinion