Angelia Deshea Steele v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 29, 2018
• Docket: 12-17-00289-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NO. 12-17-00289-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ANGELIA DESHEA STEELE, § APPEAL FROM THE 7TH APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION Angelia Steele appeals her conviction for possession with intent to deliver. In a single issue, she contends the judgment should be modified to reflect the correct offense. We modify the trial court’s judgment and affirm as modified.

BACKGROUND Appellant was charged by indictment with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Pursuant to a plea agreement, she pleaded “guilty” and was placed on ten years deferred adjudication community supervision. The State later filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, which included a request to revoke Appellant’s community supervision. Appellant pleaded “true” to the allegations that she violated the terms of her community supervision. Following a hearing, the trial court found that the allegations were “true,” revoked Appellant’s community supervision, and sentenced her to imprisonment for fifteen years. This appeal followed.

ERROR IN JUDGMENT In her sole issue, Appellant contends the judgment incorrectly reflects that she was convicted of manufacture and delivery of a controlled substance instead of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Appellant was charged by indictment with “possession of controlled substance with intent to deliver,” to which she pleaded “guilty.” However, the judgment states that Appellant was convicted of manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance in an amount greater than or equal to four hundred grams. Therefore, the judgment is incorrect. The State concedes that the judgment should be modified to reflect the correct charge. We have the authority to modify the judgment to make the record speak the truth when we have the necessary data and information to do so. Ingram v. State, 261 S.W.3d 749, 754 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2008, no pet.); Davis v. State, 323 S.W.3d 190, 198 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. ref’d). Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2 expressly authorizes an appellate court to modify the trial court’s judgment. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b). In this case, we have the necessary data and information to modify the judgment to reflect that Appellant was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. See id.; see also 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). We sustain Appellant’s sole issue.

DISPOSITION Having sustained Appellant’s sole issue, we modify the judgment to replace “man del cs pg 1>=400G” with “possession of controlled substance with intent to deliver” in the “offense” portion of the judgment, and affirm the judgment as modified.

JAMES T. WORTHEN Chief Justice

Opinion delivered March 29, 2018. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

2 COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MARCH 29, 2018

ANGELIA DESHEA STEELE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 7th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-1493-07)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record and the briefs filed herein; and the same being inspected, it is the opinion of the Court that the trial court’s judgment below should be modified and, as modified, affirmed. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the trial court’s judgment below be modified to replace “man del cs pg 1>=400G” with “possession of controlled substance with intent to deliver” in the “offense” portion of the judgment; and as modified, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed; and that this decision be certified to the trial court below for observance. James T. Worthen, Chief Justice. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.