JAMES DANIEL WILSON JR v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (2012)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Chief Justice Wright

James Daniel Wilson, Jr. appeals from the adjudication of his guilt for assault involving family violence, having a prior conviction for assault-family violence.   In two points of error, appellant contends the trial court's judgments fail to accurately reflect the conditions of community supervision he was found to have violated.   We modify the trial court's judgments and affirm as modified.   The background of these 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.

In each case, appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to the third-degree felony offense of assault involving family violence, having one prior conviction for assault-family violence.   See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a)(1) (West 2011);  Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 71.004(1) (West 2008).   Appellant also pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph contained in each indictment.   Pursuant to plea agreements, the trial court deferred adjudicating appellant's guilt, placed him on three years' community supervision, and assessed a $1,500 fine.   The State later filed motions to adjudicate, alleging appellant violated condition (a) of his community supervision by committing a new assault-family violence offense, and condition (t) by having contact with the complainant.   During a hearing on the motions, the State abandoned the allegation that appellant violated condition (a), and appellant pleaded true to violating condition (t).  The trial court found the allegation true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at ten years' imprisonment in each case.

Appellant contends the judgments should be modified to show the State abandoned one allegation and the trial court found only one allegation true.   The State agrees the judgments should be modified in the manner appellant requests.

Although the State abandoned the allegation that appellant violated condition (a) and proceeded on the allegation that appellant violated condition (t), the judgments recite the trial court found appellant violated the conditions of community supervision “as set out in the State's original motion to adjudicate.”   Thus, the judgments are incorrect.   We sustain appellant's points of error.   In each case, we modify the judgment to show the trial court found appellant violated condition (t) of community supervision.   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).

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

CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE