BRANDON JAMAL ROBERTSON v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.

BRANDON JAMAL ROBERTSON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

No. 05-09-00480-CR

Decided: May 27, 2010

Before Justices Morris, Moseley, and Lang

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Justice Lang

Brandon Jamal Robertson appeals from the revocation of his community supervision in two cases and his conviction in one case.   In four points of error, appellant contends the trial court's written judgments should be modified to show the statute for the offense in one case and to reflect the correct name of the attorney representing the State.   We affirm the trial court's judgments as modified.   The background of this case and the evidence adduced at trial are well known to the parties, and therefore we 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 cause nos.   05-09-00480-CR and 05-09-00483-CR, appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver 3,4-methylenedioxy methamphetamine (MDMA) in an amount of four grams or more, but less than 400 grams, and possession with intent to deliver cocaine in an amount of four grams or more, but less than 200 grams.   See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.112(a), (3), 481.113(a), (d) (Vernon Supp.2009).   Pursuant to plea agreements, the trial court assessed punishment at ten years' imprisonment, then placed appellant on probation for eight years pursuant to article 42.12 of the code of criminal procedure.   See Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 41.12, § 8 (Vernon Supp.2009) (state boot camp program).   The State later moved to revoke appellant's community supervision in each case, alleging he committed a new offense, unlawfully possessing a firearm, and other violations.   Appellant pleaded true to the allegations in a hearing on the motions.   The trial court found the allegations true, revoked appellant's community supervision, and assessed punishment at nine years' imprisonment.

In cause no.   05-09-00481-CR, appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon.   See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 46.04(a) (Vernon Supp.2009).   The trial court assessed punishment at nine years' imprisonment and a $2000 fine.

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, and to show the correct statute under which appellant was convicted.   The State agrees that the judgments should be modified as proposed by appellant.

The record shows that in cause no.   05-09-00481-CR, appellant was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, which is under section 46.04 of the penal code.   The trial court's judgment, however, recites the statute for the offense as “46.05 Penal Code.” Thus the trial court's judgment is incorrect.   The record also shows that the State was represented at the revocation hearing by Marshall McCallum.   The written judgment in each case recites that “Robert Pfeiffer” appeared as the attorney for the State.   Thus, the written judgments are incorrect.   We sustain appellant's four points of error.

In cause no.   05-09-00481-CR, we modify the trial court's judgment to show Marshall McCallum was the attorney for the State, and that the statute for the offense is “46.04 Penal Code.” 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 nos.   05-09-00480-CR and 05-09-00483-CR, we modify the trial court's judgments to show Marshall McCallum was the attorney for the State.

In each case, we affirm the trial court's judgments as modified.

DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE

Copied to clipboard