AFFIRM as Modified; Opinion Filed November 7, 2013.
S In The
Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01272-CR No. 05-12-01273-CR
KENNETH ERIC HADDAD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F10-59239-W and F10-52190-W
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices O'Neill, Lang-Miers, and Evans Opinion by Justice Evans In these consolidated appeals, Kenneth Eric Haddad challenges the trial court’s judgment
adjudicating his guilt and revoking his community supervision for the offenses of retaliation and
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. In his first four points of error, appellant generally
complains that the judgment in each case incorrectly shows that (1) he entered a plea of true to
the allegations in the State’s motion to adjudicate, and (2) the trial court found both of the State’s
violation allegations to be true. In points of error five and six, appellant contends there is
insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s assessment of court costs. After reviewing the
record, we agree that the judgments should be modified as requested by appellant in points of
error one through four. We also conclude, however, that appellant’s fifth and sixth points of error lack merit. Accordingly, we modify the judgments as appellant requests in points one through
four and affirm the judgments as modified.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, appellant pleaded guilty to the offenses of
retaliation and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. In accordance with the agreement, the
trial court deferred adjudicating appellant’s guilt and placed him on five years of community
supervision. The State later moved to adjudicate guilt and revoke appellant’s community
supervision in each case alleging that he violated the following two conditions of his community
supervision: (1) Condition A — appellant committed aggravated robbery on August 6, 2011; and
(2) Condition J — appellant failed to pay his community service fees and was delinquent in the
amount of $120.
After a hearing on the State’s motions, the trial court signed judgments in each case
adjudicating appellant guilty and revoking his community supervision. The trial court sentenced
appellant to ten years’ imprisonment in each case. The trial court’s judgments state that
appellant pleaded true to the State’s motions and also indicate that the trial court found both of
the State’s violation allegations “true.” Additionally, the trial court ordered appellant to pay
court costs of $294 in the retaliation case and $344 in the aggravated assault case. These appeals
ensued.
ANALYSIS
In points of error one and two, appellant contends the judgments incorrectly reflect that
he pleaded true to the violations alleged in the State’s motions to adjudicate and revoke
community supervision. In points of error three and four, appellant asserts that the judgments
incorrectly indicate that the trial court found appellant violated both conditions of community
supervision alleged in the State’s motions to adjudicate. The State concedes that the judgments
–2– are incorrect as asserted by appellant in points one through four. The State also agrees that the
judgments should be modified in the ways requested by appellant. Our review of the record
confirms that appellant did not plead true and instead contested the violation allegations in the
State’s motions. Moreover, it appears that after hearing the evidence, the trial court found that
appellant violated only the condition A of his community supervision and not Condition J.
Specifically, the trial court stated at the conclusion of the hearing, “I find allegation A to be true.
I find allegation J not to be true, based on the fact that [appellant] was incarcerated shortly after
he was placed on probation.” When the record provides the necessary information to correct
inaccuracies in a judgment, we have the authority to modify the judgment to speak the truth. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991,
pet. ref’d). Accordingly, we sustain appellant’s first, second, third, and fourth issues and modify
the judgments as requested.
In his fifth and sixth points of error, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
to support the trial court’s assessment of $294 in court costs in the retaliation case and $344 in
court costs in the aggravated assault case. Specifically, appellant argues the evidence is
insufficient to support the imposition of court costs because the clerk’s records do not contain a
written bill of costs. Appellant’s designations of record on appeal did not specifically request a
clerk’s bill of costs in these cases and, at the time appellant’s brief was filed, the clerk’s records
did not contain them. We ordered the clerk to file supplemental records containing the certified
bill of costs associated with each case and the clerk did so. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(c)(1)
(allowing supplementation of clerk’s record if relevant item omitted). Accordingly, appellant’s
insufficiency complaint based upon the absence of a bill of costs is now moot. See Coronel v.
State, 05-12-00493-CR, 2013 WL 3874446 at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 29, 2013, no pet. h.).
–3– Appellant has filed an objection to the supplemental clerk’s records arguing that (1) the
bills of costs are unsigned, unsworn computer printouts that do not qualify as a proper bill of
costs under article 103.001 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and (2) there is no
indication the printouts were ever filed in the trial court or brought to the attention of the trial
judge before costs were included in the judgments. We have previously addressed and rejected
these arguments in Coronel. See id. at *4–5. Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s objection as
well as his fifth and sixth issues.
We sustain appellant’s first, second, third, and fourth points of error. We modify the
judgments in trial court cause numbers F-1059239-W and F10-52190-W to reflect that (1)
appellant entered a plea of “not true” to the State’s motion to adjudicate and revoke community
supervision, and (2) the trial court found “true” the State’s allegation that appellant violated
condition A of his community supervision, and found the State’s allegation that appellant
violated condition J of his community supervision “not true.”
We affirm the trial court’s judgments as modified.
/David Evans/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47
121272F.U05
–4– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
KENNETH ERIC HADDAD, Appellant On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-12-01272-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F10-59239-W Opinion delivered by Justice Evans, THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices O'Neill and Lang-Miers participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows: (1) Appellant entered a plea of "not true" to the State's motion to adjudicate and revoke community supervision, and (2) the trial court found "true" the State's allegation that appellant violated condition A of his community supervision and found "not true” the State’s allegation that appellant violated condition J of his community supervision.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
AFFIRM as Modified; Opinion Filed November 7, 2013.
S In The
Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01272-CR No. 05-12-01273-CR
KENNETH ERIC HADDAD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F10-59239-W and F10-52190-W
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices O'Neill, Lang-Miers, and Evans Opinion by Justice Evans In these consolidated appeals, Kenneth Eric Haddad challenges the trial court’s judgment
adjudicating his guilt and revoking his community supervision for the offenses of retaliation and
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. In his first four points of error, appellant generally
complains that the judgment in each case incorrectly shows that (1) he entered a plea of true to
the allegations in the State’s motion to adjudicate, and (2) the trial court found both of the State’s
violation allegations to be true. In points of error five and six, appellant contends there is
insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s assessment of court costs. After reviewing the
record, we agree that the judgments should be modified as requested by appellant in points of
error one through four. We also conclude, however, that appellant’s fifth and sixth points of error lack merit. Accordingly, we modify the judgments as appellant requests in points one through
four and affirm the judgments as modified.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, appellant pleaded guilty to the offenses of
retaliation and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. In accordance with the agreement, the
trial court deferred adjudicating appellant’s guilt and placed him on five years of community
supervision. The State later moved to adjudicate guilt and revoke appellant’s community
supervision in each case alleging that he violated the following two conditions of his community
supervision: (1) Condition A — appellant committed aggravated robbery on August 6, 2011; and
(2) Condition J — appellant failed to pay his community service fees and was delinquent in the
amount of $120.
After a hearing on the State’s motions, the trial court signed judgments in each case
adjudicating appellant guilty and revoking his community supervision. The trial court sentenced
appellant to ten years’ imprisonment in each case. The trial court’s judgments state that
appellant pleaded true to the State’s motions and also indicate that the trial court found both of
the State’s violation allegations “true.” Additionally, the trial court ordered appellant to pay
court costs of $294 in the retaliation case and $344 in the aggravated assault case. These appeals
ensued.
ANALYSIS
In points of error one and two, appellant contends the judgments incorrectly reflect that
he pleaded true to the violations alleged in the State’s motions to adjudicate and revoke
community supervision. In points of error three and four, appellant asserts that the judgments
incorrectly indicate that the trial court found appellant violated both conditions of community
supervision alleged in the State’s motions to adjudicate. The State concedes that the judgments
–2– are incorrect as asserted by appellant in points one through four. The State also agrees that the
judgments should be modified in the ways requested by appellant. Our review of the record
confirms that appellant did not plead true and instead contested the violation allegations in the
State’s motions. Moreover, it appears that after hearing the evidence, the trial court found that
appellant violated only the condition A of his community supervision and not Condition J.
Specifically, the trial court stated at the conclusion of the hearing, “I find allegation A to be true.
I find allegation J not to be true, based on the fact that [appellant] was incarcerated shortly after
he was placed on probation.” When the record provides the necessary information to correct
inaccuracies in a judgment, we have the authority to modify the judgment to speak the truth. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991,
pet. ref’d). Accordingly, we sustain appellant’s first, second, third, and fourth issues and modify
the judgments as requested.
In his fifth and sixth points of error, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
to support the trial court’s assessment of $294 in court costs in the retaliation case and $344 in
court costs in the aggravated assault case. Specifically, appellant argues the evidence is
insufficient to support the imposition of court costs because the clerk’s records do not contain a
written bill of costs. Appellant’s designations of record on appeal did not specifically request a
clerk’s bill of costs in these cases and, at the time appellant’s brief was filed, the clerk’s records
did not contain them. We ordered the clerk to file supplemental records containing the certified
bill of costs associated with each case and the clerk did so. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(c)(1)
(allowing supplementation of clerk’s record if relevant item omitted). Accordingly, appellant’s
insufficiency complaint based upon the absence of a bill of costs is now moot. See Coronel v.
State, 05-12-00493-CR, 2013 WL 3874446 at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 29, 2013, no pet. h.).
–3– Appellant has filed an objection to the supplemental clerk’s records arguing that (1) the
bills of costs are unsigned, unsworn computer printouts that do not qualify as a proper bill of
costs under article 103.001 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and (2) there is no
indication the printouts were ever filed in the trial court or brought to the attention of the trial
judge before costs were included in the judgments. We have previously addressed and rejected
these arguments in Coronel. See id. at *4–5. Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s objection as
well as his fifth and sixth issues.
We sustain appellant’s first, second, third, and fourth points of error. We modify the
judgments in trial court cause numbers F-1059239-W and F10-52190-W to reflect that (1)
appellant entered a plea of “not true” to the State’s motion to adjudicate and revoke community
supervision, and (2) the trial court found “true” the State’s allegation that appellant violated
condition A of his community supervision, and found the State’s allegation that appellant
violated condition J of his community supervision “not true.”
We affirm the trial court’s judgments as modified.
/David Evans/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47
121272F.U05
–4– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
KENNETH ERIC HADDAD, Appellant On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-12-01272-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F10-59239-W Opinion delivered by Justice Evans, THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices O'Neill and Lang-Miers participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows: (1) Appellant entered a plea of "not true" to the State's motion to adjudicate and revoke community supervision, and (2) the trial court found "true" the State's allegation that appellant violated condition A of his community supervision and found "not true” the State’s allegation that appellant violated condition J of his community supervision. As MODIFIED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 7th day of November, 2013.
–5– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
KENNETH ERIC HADDAD, Appellant On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-12-01273-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F10-52190-W Opinion delivered by Justice Evans, THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices O'Neill and Lang-Miers participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows: (1) Appellant entered a plea of "not true" to the State's motion to adjudicate and revoke community supervision, and (2) the trial court found "true” the State's allegation that appellant violated condition A of his community supervision and found “not true” the State’s allegation that appellant violated condition J of his community supervision. As MODIFIED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
–6–