ANTHONY TYRONE RAVIN v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (2010)

OPINION

Opinion By Justice Moseley

Anthony Tyrone Ravin waived a jury and pleaded guilty to two robbery offenses.   See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.02(a) (Vernon 2003).   Appellant also pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs contained in each indictment.   After finding the enhancement paragraphs true, the trial court assessed punishment at twenty-five years' imprisonment in each case.   In four points of error, appellant contends the trial court's judgment in each case should be modified to show the correct date of the offenses, and the clerk's records should be corrected to reflect the correct data related to the cases.   We affirm the trial court's judgments.

In his first point of error, appellant contends that in cause no.   05-08-01116-CR, the written judgment should be modified because it recites the offense date is June 3, 2007, but the indictment recites the offense date is May 24, 2007.   In his second point of error, appellant contends that in cause no.   05-08-01117-CR, the written judgment should be modified because it recites the offense date is May 24, 2007, but the indictment recites the offense date is June 3, 2007.   In his third and fourth points of error, appellant contends the clerk's record in both cases contain erroneous information and should be modified or returned to the trial court for a supplemental record.   The State agrees that the clerk's records should be corrected.

A supplemental clerk's record correcting the complained-of error was filed in each case.   Thus, appellant's complaints regarding the clerk's records are moot.   Moreover, the supplemental clerk's records also contain corrected judgments that recite the offense date in each case that match the offense date shown in each indictment.

Because the trial court's written judgments contained in the supplemental clerk's records correctly recite the offense dates, appellant's complaints regarding the offense dates are moot.   We overrule appellant's four points of error.

We affirm the trial court's judgment in each case.

JIM MOSELEY JUSTICE