Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Rockelle LaShawn Parker, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant Rockelle LaShawn Parker pleaded guilty to the offense of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. However, the district court suspended imposition of the sentence and placed Parker on community supervision for ten years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke, alleging that Parker had violated the terms and conditions of her community supervision by committing the offense of robbery and by failing to pay various community-supervision fees. Parker pleaded true to the allegations that she had failed to pay the fees but not true to the allegation that she had committed robbery. After hearing evidence, the district court found that the allegations were true, revoked Parker's community supervision, and sentenced her to eight years' imprisonment. This appeal followed.
In a single point of error, Parker argues that the judgment revoking her community supervision should be modified to reflect that she pleaded not true to the allegation that she had committed the offense of robbery. In its brief, the State concedes error. This Court has the authority to modify incorrect judgments when the necessary information is available to do so. See Tex.R.App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex.Crim.App.1993); French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). Accordingly, we sustain Parker's sole point of error. We modify the judgment to reflect that she pleaded not true to paragraph A of the motion to revoke and true to paragraphs B, C, and D of the motion to revoke. As modified, the judgment revoking community supervision is affirmed.
Modified and, as Modified,
Bob Pemberton, Justice
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: NO. 03–12–00540–CR
Decided: June 07, 2013
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)