GEORGE DANIEL GRANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (2010)

OPINION

Opinion By Justice Lang

George Daniel Grant appeals from the adjudication of guilt for two aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than fourteen years offenses and one indecency with a child offense.   In four points of error, appellant contends the trial court's judgments should be modified to reflect the correct sentence imposed in one case, to correct the date of the motion to adjudicate in one case, and to reflect the correct name of the State's attorney in each case.   We affirm the trial court's judgments as modified.

Background

In each case, appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than fourteen years (cause nos.   05-08-01260-CR and 05-08-01397-CR) and indecency with a child (cause no.   05-08-01262-CR).  See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 21.11(a)(2), 22.021(a)(1)(B)(i), (iii) (Vernon 2003 & Supp.2009).   Pursuant to plea bargain agreements, the trial court deferred adjudicating guilt, placed appellant on ten years' community supervision, and assessed fines of $2500 and $5000.   The State later moved to adjudicate guilt in each case, alleging appellant violated three conditions of his community supervision.   Appellant pleaded true to the allegations in a hearing on the motions.   The trial court found the allegations true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at forty years' imprisonment for each aggravated sexual assault of a child conviction and ten years' imprisonment for the indecency with a child conviction.

Modify Judgments

In four points of error, appellant contends the trial court's written judgments should be modified to correct the name of the State's attorney in each case, to correct the date of the motion to adjudicate in cause no.   05-08-01260-CR, and to show that a ten-year sentence was imposed in cause no.   05-08-01262-CR.   The State agrees that the judgments should be modified as proposed by appellant.

The record shows that in cause no.   05-08-01262-CR, the trial court assessed punishment at ten years' imprisonment.   The written judgment, however, recites the sentence is twenty years' imprisonment.   Thus, the written judgment is incorrect.   We sustain appellant's first point of error.

The record also shows the trial court conducted the hearing on the State's March 4, 2004 motion to adjudicate, and that the State was represented at that hearing by Carmen White.   The written judgment in cause no.   05-08-01260-CR recites a “March 7, 2001 motion to adjudicate” as grounds for adjudication, and the written judgments in all three cases recites that “S. Hallman” appeared as the attorney for the State.   Thus, the written judgment in each case is incorrect.   We sustain appellant's second, third, and fourth points of error.

We modify the trial court's judgments in cause no.   05-08-01260-CR to show Carmen White was the attorney for the State, and that the grounds for adjudication were set out in the State's March 4, 2004 motion to adjudicate.   See Tex.R.App. P. 43.2(b);  Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex.Crim.App.1993);  Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529-30 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd).   In cause no.   05-08-01262-CR, we modify the trial court's judgment to show Carmen White was the attorney for the State, and the punishment imposed was ten years' imprisonment.   In cause no.   05-08-01397-CR, we modify the trial court's judgment to show Carmen White was the attorney for the State.

As modified, we affirm the trial court's judgments.

DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE