Elizabeth Mendoza, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana.

Elizabeth Mendoza, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

No. 06–14–00226–CR

Decided: June 25, 2015

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

After Elizabeth Mendoza pled guilty to the offense of attempted possession of a controlled substance, she was placed on ten months' deferred adjudication community supervision in accord with the terms of a plea agreement with the State.1  Thereafter, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt.   Mendoza entered an open plea of “true” to the allegations in the State's motion, her community supervision was revoked, and she was sentenced to one year's confinement in the county jail.   The judgment adjudicating guilt, however, incorrectly indicates that Mendoza's one-year sentence was the result of a plea bargain.   Mendoza asks that the judgment be modified to accurately reflect that she was sentenced pursuant to her open plea of true.   The State agrees that the judgment adjudicating guilt should be modified to correctly reflect that Mendoza entered her plea of true without the benefit of a plea agreement.

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure give this Court authority to modify judgments to correct errors and make the record speak the truth.  Tex.R.App. P. 43.2(b);  French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex.Crim.App.1992);  Rhoten v. State, 299 S.W.3d 349, 356 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2009, no pet.).   Therefore, we hereby modify the judgment to indicate that Mendoza's one-year sentence reflected in the judgment adjudicating guilt for the offense of attempted possession of a controlled substance was not imposed pursuant to a plea agreement.

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

FOOTNOTES

1.   Originally appealed to the Fifth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to Section 73.001 of the Texas Government Code. See Tex. Gov' t Code Ann.. § 73.001 (West 2013).   We are unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Fifth Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue.   See Tex.R.App. P. 41.3.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley