Affirmed as Modified and Opinion Filed December 6, 2024
In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00426-CR No. 05-23-00427-CR No. 05-23-00428-CR No. 05-23-00429-CR No. 05-23-00431-CR
DIEGO NICHOLAS FRANCIS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F20-38308-U; F20-38311-U; F20-38312-U; F20-38313- U; F20-38314-U
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Goldstein, and Miskel Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness A jury convicted Appellant Diego Nicholas Francis on five counts of
possession of child pornography and assessed punishment at five years’
imprisonment in each case. In a single issue on appeal, Francis contends the
judgment in each case should be modified to reflect his guilty plea. The State agrees.
Accordingly, we sustain Francis’s sole issue and modify the judgments to reflect Francis’s guilty pleas. We also modify the judgments to include the victims’ ages as
required by the sex-offender registration statutes. As modified, we affirm.
BACKGROUND1 Irving Police received a tip from the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children regarding the download and sharing of child pornography on a
popular social media application. Upon investigation, the police traced the activity
to an IP address and account belonging to Francis. Police obtained a search warrant
for Francis’s residence and the electronic devices therein. Police later extracted
several thousand images and hundreds of videos from one of Francis’s cell phones.
Investigators determined that most of the images and videos contained child
pornography.
Francis was arrested and indicted on five counts of possession of child
pornography, a third-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 43.26. The cases were
tried together. In each case, Francis pleaded guilty, and the jury returned a guilty
verdict as instructed by the trial court. The jury then heard evidence during the
punishment phase of trial. The State presented evidence from the police investigators
regarding each offense. Francis testified in his defense, as did several of his family
members and friends. After hearing the evidence, the jury assessed punishment at
five years’ imprisonment in each case. This appeal followed.
1 Because Francis does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence or raise any issues that require a detailed recitation of the underlying facts, we provide limited background information. See TEX. R. APP. 47.1. –2– ANALYSIS In a single issue, Francis asks this Court to modify each judgment to reflect
his guilty plea. The State agrees with this request, as do we.
This Court may modify the trial court’s judgment to make the record speak
the truth when it has the necessary data and information to do so. TEX. R. APP. P.
43.2(b); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W. 2d 526, 529 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d).
As indicated, Francis pleaded guilty in each case. However, each judgment
reflects a plea of “not guilty.” Accordingly, we sustain Francis’s sole issue and
modify each judgment to reflect Francis’s guilty plea. See Castillo v. State, No. 05-
22-01221-CR, 2023 WL 8733045, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 18, 2023, no
pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (modifying the judgment to reflect
defendant’s correct plea of not guilty).
Furthermore, possession of child pornography is an offense subject to the sex-
offender registration requirements of Chapter 62. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. arts.
62.001(5)(B), 62.051(a). When sex-offender registration is required, the judgment
must contain (1) a statement that the registration requirement of Chapter 62 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure applies to the defendant, and (2) a statement of the age
of the victim. Id. art. 42.01, § 1(27). Here, the judgments reflect Francis is required
to register as a sex offender, but they do not include the victims’ ages. Trial evidence
indicates the child victims in the pornography were between four and eight years
old. Accordingly, we modify each judgment to reflect the victim’s age. See
–3– Floressanchez v. State, No. 05-22-01073-CR, 2023 WL 6457326, at *5 (Tex.
App.—Dallas Oct. 4, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)
(modifying judgment to reflect the age of the victim pursuant to the sex-offender
registration requirements).
It is incumbent on the trial court and the district clerk’s office to issue
judgments that properly reflect what occurred in any given case. See TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. art. 42.01 (setting out required provisions of a criminal judgment). It
is also incumbent on counsel to review judgments for any errors and seek to correct
such errors while the trial court retains plenary power so that accurate judgments can
be prepared. This Court should not be tasked with correcting trial courts’ judgments
time and time again.
CONCLUSION The trial court judgments erroneously state Francis pleaded “not guilty” in
each case. Accordingly, we modify each judgment in Cause Numbers F20-38308-
U, F20-38311-U, F20-38312-U, F20-38313-U, and F20-38314-U as follows:
Under the section “Plea to Offense,” “Not Guilty” is modified to “Guilty.”
The trial court judgments also fail to include the victims’ ages as required by
the sex-offender registration statutes. Therefore, we further modify the judgments as
follows:
In Cause Number F20-38308-U, the statement “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was N/A” is modified to read “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was five to six years old.” –4– In Cause Number F20-38311-U, the statement “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was N/A” is modified to read “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was six to eight years old.”
In Cause Number F20-38312-U, the statement “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was N/A” is modified to read “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was six to eight years old.”
In Cause Number F20-38313-U, the statement “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was N/A” is modified to read “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was four to five years old.”
In Cause Number F20-38314-U, the statement “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was N/A” is modified to read “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was four to six years old.”
As modified, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. The trial court is
directed to prepare corrected judgments that reflect the modifications made in this
Court’s opinion and judgments. See Shumate v. State, 649 S.W.3d 240, 245–46 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 2021, no pet.).
230426f.u05 230427f.u05 /Robbie Partida-Kipness/ 230428f.u05 ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS 230429f.u05 JUSTICE 230431f.u05 Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
–5– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
DIEGO NICHOLAS FRANCIS, On Appeal from the 291st Judicial Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F20-38308. No. 05-23-00426-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Partida- Kipness. Justices Goldstein and THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Miskel participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows:
Under the section “Plea to Offense,” “Not Guilty” is modified to “Guilty.”
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Affirmed as Modified and Opinion Filed December 6, 2024
In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00426-CR No. 05-23-00427-CR No. 05-23-00428-CR No. 05-23-00429-CR No. 05-23-00431-CR
DIEGO NICHOLAS FRANCIS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F20-38308-U; F20-38311-U; F20-38312-U; F20-38313- U; F20-38314-U
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Goldstein, and Miskel Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness A jury convicted Appellant Diego Nicholas Francis on five counts of
possession of child pornography and assessed punishment at five years’
imprisonment in each case. In a single issue on appeal, Francis contends the
judgment in each case should be modified to reflect his guilty plea. The State agrees.
Accordingly, we sustain Francis’s sole issue and modify the judgments to reflect Francis’s guilty pleas. We also modify the judgments to include the victims’ ages as
required by the sex-offender registration statutes. As modified, we affirm.
BACKGROUND1 Irving Police received a tip from the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children regarding the download and sharing of child pornography on a
popular social media application. Upon investigation, the police traced the activity
to an IP address and account belonging to Francis. Police obtained a search warrant
for Francis’s residence and the electronic devices therein. Police later extracted
several thousand images and hundreds of videos from one of Francis’s cell phones.
Investigators determined that most of the images and videos contained child
pornography.
Francis was arrested and indicted on five counts of possession of child
pornography, a third-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 43.26. The cases were
tried together. In each case, Francis pleaded guilty, and the jury returned a guilty
verdict as instructed by the trial court. The jury then heard evidence during the
punishment phase of trial. The State presented evidence from the police investigators
regarding each offense. Francis testified in his defense, as did several of his family
members and friends. After hearing the evidence, the jury assessed punishment at
five years’ imprisonment in each case. This appeal followed.
1 Because Francis does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence or raise any issues that require a detailed recitation of the underlying facts, we provide limited background information. See TEX. R. APP. 47.1. –2– ANALYSIS In a single issue, Francis asks this Court to modify each judgment to reflect
his guilty plea. The State agrees with this request, as do we.
This Court may modify the trial court’s judgment to make the record speak
the truth when it has the necessary data and information to do so. TEX. R. APP. P.
43.2(b); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W. 2d 526, 529 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d).
As indicated, Francis pleaded guilty in each case. However, each judgment
reflects a plea of “not guilty.” Accordingly, we sustain Francis’s sole issue and
modify each judgment to reflect Francis’s guilty plea. See Castillo v. State, No. 05-
22-01221-CR, 2023 WL 8733045, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 18, 2023, no
pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (modifying the judgment to reflect
defendant’s correct plea of not guilty).
Furthermore, possession of child pornography is an offense subject to the sex-
offender registration requirements of Chapter 62. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. arts.
62.001(5)(B), 62.051(a). When sex-offender registration is required, the judgment
must contain (1) a statement that the registration requirement of Chapter 62 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure applies to the defendant, and (2) a statement of the age
of the victim. Id. art. 42.01, § 1(27). Here, the judgments reflect Francis is required
to register as a sex offender, but they do not include the victims’ ages. Trial evidence
indicates the child victims in the pornography were between four and eight years
old. Accordingly, we modify each judgment to reflect the victim’s age. See
–3– Floressanchez v. State, No. 05-22-01073-CR, 2023 WL 6457326, at *5 (Tex.
App.—Dallas Oct. 4, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)
(modifying judgment to reflect the age of the victim pursuant to the sex-offender
registration requirements).
It is incumbent on the trial court and the district clerk’s office to issue
judgments that properly reflect what occurred in any given case. See TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. art. 42.01 (setting out required provisions of a criminal judgment). It
is also incumbent on counsel to review judgments for any errors and seek to correct
such errors while the trial court retains plenary power so that accurate judgments can
be prepared. This Court should not be tasked with correcting trial courts’ judgments
time and time again.
CONCLUSION The trial court judgments erroneously state Francis pleaded “not guilty” in
each case. Accordingly, we modify each judgment in Cause Numbers F20-38308-
U, F20-38311-U, F20-38312-U, F20-38313-U, and F20-38314-U as follows:
Under the section “Plea to Offense,” “Not Guilty” is modified to “Guilty.”
The trial court judgments also fail to include the victims’ ages as required by
the sex-offender registration statutes. Therefore, we further modify the judgments as
follows:
In Cause Number F20-38308-U, the statement “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was N/A” is modified to read “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was five to six years old.” –4– In Cause Number F20-38311-U, the statement “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was N/A” is modified to read “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was six to eight years old.”
In Cause Number F20-38312-U, the statement “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was N/A” is modified to read “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was six to eight years old.”
In Cause Number F20-38313-U, the statement “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was N/A” is modified to read “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was four to five years old.”
In Cause Number F20-38314-U, the statement “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was N/A” is modified to read “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was four to six years old.”
As modified, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. The trial court is
directed to prepare corrected judgments that reflect the modifications made in this
Court’s opinion and judgments. See Shumate v. State, 649 S.W.3d 240, 245–46 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 2021, no pet.).
230426f.u05 230427f.u05 /Robbie Partida-Kipness/ 230428f.u05 ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS 230429f.u05 JUSTICE 230431f.u05 Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
–5– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
DIEGO NICHOLAS FRANCIS, On Appeal from the 291st Judicial Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F20-38308. No. 05-23-00426-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Partida- Kipness. Justices Goldstein and THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Miskel participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows:
Under the section “Plea to Offense,” “Not Guilty” is modified to “Guilty.”
The statement “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was N/A” is modified to read “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was five to six years old.”
As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
We DIRECT the trial court to prepare a corrected judgment that reflects the modifications made in this Court’s opinion and judgment.
Judgment entered this 6th day of December, 2024.
–6– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
DIEGO NICHOLAS FRANCIS, On Appeal from the 291st Judicial Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F20-38311. No. 05-23-00427-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Partida- Kipness. Justices Goldstein and THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Miskel participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows:
Under the section “Plea to Offense,” “Not Guilty” is modified to “Guilty.”
The statement “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was N/A” is modified to read “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was six to eight years old.”
We DIRECT the trial court to prepare a corrected judgment that reflects the modifications made in this Court’s opinion and judgment.
–7– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
DIEGO NICHOLAS FRANCIS, On Appeal from the 291st Judicial Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F20-38312. No. 05-23-00428-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Partida- Kipness. Justices Goldstein and THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Miskel participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows:
Under the section “Plea to Offense,” “Not Guilty” is modified to “Guilty.”
The statement “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was N/A” is modified to read “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was six to eight years old.”
We DIRECT the trial court to prepare a corrected judgment that reflects the modifications made in this Court’s opinion and judgment.
–8– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
DIEGO NICHOLAS FRANCIS, On Appeal from the 291st Judicial Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F20-38313. No. 05-23-00429-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Partida- Kipness. Justices Goldstein and THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Miskel participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows:
Under the section “Plea to Offense,” “Not Guilty” is modified to “Guilty.”
The statement “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was N/A” is modified to read “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was four to five years old.”
We DIRECT the trial court to prepare a corrected judgment that reflects the modifications made in this Court’s opinion and judgment.
–9– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
DIEGO NICHOLAS FRANCIS, On Appeal from the 291st Judicial Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F20-38314. No. 05-23-00431-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Partida- Kipness. Justices Goldstein and THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Miskel participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows:
Under the section “Plea to Offense,” “Not Guilty” is modified to “Guilty.”
The statement “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was N/A” is modified to read “The age of the victim at the time of the offense was four to six years old.”
We DIRECT the trial court to prepare a corrected judgment that reflects the modifications made in this Court’s opinion and judgment.
–10–