Affirm; Opinion Filed October 21, 2019.
In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-18-01541-CR
LADARION JENKINS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F16-39885-M
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Pedersen, III, Reichek, and Carlyle Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III In three issues, appellant Ladarion Jenkins requests modification of the trial court’s
judgment to correct various clerical errors. For the following reasons, we sustain each issue raised,
modify the judgment to correct the clerical errors, and affirm the judgment as modified.
Background
Appellant was charged by indictment with assault bodily injury/family violence enhanced
by a prior family-violence conviction. Pursuant to a plea bargain with the State, appellant pleaded
guilty and judicially confessed to the offense. The trial court accepted the plea and placed
appellant on two years’ deferred-adjudication community supervision.
The State later moved to revoke appellant’s community supervision. The trial court found
the State’s allegations to be true, revoked appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to eight years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice. The trial court also made an affirmative family-violence finding.
Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal.
Modification of the Judgment
In three issues, appellant asks this Court to modify the judgment to correct various clerical
errors reflected in the judgment. In his first issue, appellant asks this Court to modify the judgment
to reflect the correct name of the offense for which he was convicted. In his second issue, appellant
asks this Court to modify the judgment to reflect that he entered a plea of “not true” to the State’s
amended motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt. In his third issue, appellant asks this
Court to modify the judgment to reflect that there was no plea bargain agreement. The State does
not oppose these requests.
Applicable Law
Appellate courts may modify a trial court’s judgment and affirm it as modified. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). This Court
“has the power to correct and reform the judgment of the court below to make the record speak the
truth when it has the necessary data and information to do so.” Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526,
529 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, writ ref’d). Appellate courts may reform trial court judgments
where “the evidence necessary to correct the judgment appears in the record.” Id. If a clerical
error in the trial court’s judgment is brought to our attention, we have a “mandatory duty” to correct
it. Id.
First Issue
In his first issue, appellant contends we should reform the judgment by removing the word
“ENHANCE” from the description of the offense for which he was convicted. The trial court’s
judgment states that the offense for which appellant was convicted is “ASSAULT BODILY INJURY/FAMILY VIOLENCE ENHANCE.” Appellant contends that the word “ENHANCE” is
unnecessary and that, without it, the judgment would still contains an accurate description of the
offense.
The trial court’s judgment should include an accurate description of the offense. See Davis
v. State, 501 S.W.2d 629, 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.
42.01 § 1(13) (judgment in criminal case “shall reflect … [t]he offense or offenses for which the
defendant was convicted.”). If the judgment describes the wrong offense, we may reform the
judgment to correct the inaccuracy. See Burton v. State, Nos. 05-18-00608-CR, 05-18-00609-CR,
05-18-00610-CR, 2019 WL 3543580, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 5, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.,
not designated for publication).
Here, the indictment charged appellant with assault bodily injury/family violence enhanced
by a prior family-violence conviction, in violation of section 22.01(b)(2)(A) of the Texas Penal
Code. The indictment also alleged a previous conviction for misdemeanor assault family violence.
Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the “enhance” notation in the judgment’s
description of the offense clearly referred to the previous conviction alleged for purposes of
classifying the degree of the offense or to the prior conviction alleged to enhance punishment. See
id. at *5; see also Mims v. State, Nos. 05-17-01108-CR, No. 05-17-01109-CR, 2018 WL 4784571,
at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 4, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)
(modifying “the offense for which defendant convicted” portions of two judgments to delete the
“enhanced” reference in one case and the “enh” reference in the other). Furthermore, the reference
is not necessary. See Mims, 2018 WL 4784571, at *2. Without the reference, the judgment still
contains an accurate description of the offense (assault bodily injury/family violence) and recites
the applicable statutory offense (22.01 Penal Code) and degree for that offense (third degree
felony). See id. The State contends that the judgment is not technically incorrect. However, given this
Court’s ruling in Mims, the State does not oppose modification of the trial court’s judgment to
reflect a conviction for assault bodily injury/family violence. Because the “ENHANCE” notation
is not necessary to describe the offense for which appellant was convicted, we sustain appellant’s
first issue and modify the offense section of the judgment to delete the “ENHANCE” notation
from the offense’s description.
Second Issue
In his second issue, appellant requests that the judgment be modified to reflect that
appellant entered a plea of “ NOT TRUE” to the violations alleged in the State’s allegations in its
amended motion to adjudicate. The written judgment reflects that appellant pleaded “TRUE.”
According to the reporter’s record, appellant initially entered a plea of “true,” but later withdrew
his plea of “true” and pleaded “not true” to the alleged violations. Because the necessary
information appears in the record before us, we modify the judgment to accurately reflect
appellant’s plea. See James v. State, 425 S.W.3d 492, 501–02 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2012, pet. ref’d) (record supported modification of pleas and findings on enhancement
paragraphs). We delete the portion of the trial court’s judgment that states “TRUE” under the
heading “Plea to Motion to Adjudicate,” and add the words “NOT TRUE” under that heading.
Third Issue
In his third issue, appellant requests that the judgment be modified to show there was no
plea bargain regarding the State’s motion to adjudicate. The “Terms of Plea Bargain” section of
the judgment has been filled in as follows: “8 YEARS TDCJ.” However, other than the written
judgment, the record contains no other documents, plea paperwork, or any indication that the State
and appellant entered into a plea bargain agreement to resolve the State’s motion to adjudicate.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Affirm; Opinion Filed October 21, 2019.
In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-18-01541-CR
LADARION JENKINS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F16-39885-M
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Pedersen, III, Reichek, and Carlyle Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III In three issues, appellant Ladarion Jenkins requests modification of the trial court’s
judgment to correct various clerical errors. For the following reasons, we sustain each issue raised,
modify the judgment to correct the clerical errors, and affirm the judgment as modified.
Background
Appellant was charged by indictment with assault bodily injury/family violence enhanced
by a prior family-violence conviction. Pursuant to a plea bargain with the State, appellant pleaded
guilty and judicially confessed to the offense. The trial court accepted the plea and placed
appellant on two years’ deferred-adjudication community supervision.
The State later moved to revoke appellant’s community supervision. The trial court found
the State’s allegations to be true, revoked appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to eight years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice. The trial court also made an affirmative family-violence finding.
Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal.
Modification of the Judgment
In three issues, appellant asks this Court to modify the judgment to correct various clerical
errors reflected in the judgment. In his first issue, appellant asks this Court to modify the judgment
to reflect the correct name of the offense for which he was convicted. In his second issue, appellant
asks this Court to modify the judgment to reflect that he entered a plea of “not true” to the State’s
amended motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt. In his third issue, appellant asks this
Court to modify the judgment to reflect that there was no plea bargain agreement. The State does
not oppose these requests.
Applicable Law
Appellate courts may modify a trial court’s judgment and affirm it as modified. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). This Court
“has the power to correct and reform the judgment of the court below to make the record speak the
truth when it has the necessary data and information to do so.” Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526,
529 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, writ ref’d). Appellate courts may reform trial court judgments
where “the evidence necessary to correct the judgment appears in the record.” Id. If a clerical
error in the trial court’s judgment is brought to our attention, we have a “mandatory duty” to correct
it. Id.
First Issue
In his first issue, appellant contends we should reform the judgment by removing the word
“ENHANCE” from the description of the offense for which he was convicted. The trial court’s
judgment states that the offense for which appellant was convicted is “ASSAULT BODILY INJURY/FAMILY VIOLENCE ENHANCE.” Appellant contends that the word “ENHANCE” is
unnecessary and that, without it, the judgment would still contains an accurate description of the
offense.
The trial court’s judgment should include an accurate description of the offense. See Davis
v. State, 501 S.W.2d 629, 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.
42.01 § 1(13) (judgment in criminal case “shall reflect … [t]he offense or offenses for which the
defendant was convicted.”). If the judgment describes the wrong offense, we may reform the
judgment to correct the inaccuracy. See Burton v. State, Nos. 05-18-00608-CR, 05-18-00609-CR,
05-18-00610-CR, 2019 WL 3543580, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 5, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.,
not designated for publication).
Here, the indictment charged appellant with assault bodily injury/family violence enhanced
by a prior family-violence conviction, in violation of section 22.01(b)(2)(A) of the Texas Penal
Code. The indictment also alleged a previous conviction for misdemeanor assault family violence.
Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the “enhance” notation in the judgment’s
description of the offense clearly referred to the previous conviction alleged for purposes of
classifying the degree of the offense or to the prior conviction alleged to enhance punishment. See
id. at *5; see also Mims v. State, Nos. 05-17-01108-CR, No. 05-17-01109-CR, 2018 WL 4784571,
at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 4, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)
(modifying “the offense for which defendant convicted” portions of two judgments to delete the
“enhanced” reference in one case and the “enh” reference in the other). Furthermore, the reference
is not necessary. See Mims, 2018 WL 4784571, at *2. Without the reference, the judgment still
contains an accurate description of the offense (assault bodily injury/family violence) and recites
the applicable statutory offense (22.01 Penal Code) and degree for that offense (third degree
felony). See id. The State contends that the judgment is not technically incorrect. However, given this
Court’s ruling in Mims, the State does not oppose modification of the trial court’s judgment to
reflect a conviction for assault bodily injury/family violence. Because the “ENHANCE” notation
is not necessary to describe the offense for which appellant was convicted, we sustain appellant’s
first issue and modify the offense section of the judgment to delete the “ENHANCE” notation
from the offense’s description.
Second Issue
In his second issue, appellant requests that the judgment be modified to reflect that
appellant entered a plea of “ NOT TRUE” to the violations alleged in the State’s allegations in its
amended motion to adjudicate. The written judgment reflects that appellant pleaded “TRUE.”
According to the reporter’s record, appellant initially entered a plea of “true,” but later withdrew
his plea of “true” and pleaded “not true” to the alleged violations. Because the necessary
information appears in the record before us, we modify the judgment to accurately reflect
appellant’s plea. See James v. State, 425 S.W.3d 492, 501–02 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2012, pet. ref’d) (record supported modification of pleas and findings on enhancement
paragraphs). We delete the portion of the trial court’s judgment that states “TRUE” under the
heading “Plea to Motion to Adjudicate,” and add the words “NOT TRUE” under that heading.
Third Issue
In his third issue, appellant requests that the judgment be modified to show there was no
plea bargain regarding the State’s motion to adjudicate. The “Terms of Plea Bargain” section of
the judgment has been filled in as follows: “8 YEARS TDCJ.” However, other than the written
judgment, the record contains no other documents, plea paperwork, or any indication that the State
and appellant entered into a plea bargain agreement to resolve the State’s motion to adjudicate.
Where the record contains the necessary information to do so, the court on appeal has the power to reform incorrect judgments. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Asberry, 813 S.W.2d at 529. Based
on the record before us, we sustain appellant’s third issue and modify the judgment to accurately
reflect that there was no plea bargain regarding the State’s motion to adjudicate.
Conclusion
We conclude that appellant’s requested modifications are warranted and sustain his issues.
We modify the judgment as set forth in this opinion and as modified, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
/Bill Pedersen, III// BILL PEDERSEN. III JUSTICE
Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47
181541f.u05 Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
LADARION JENKINS, Appellant On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-18-01541-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F16-39885-M. Opinion delivered by Justice Pedersen, III. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Reichek and Carlyle participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows:
(1) the word “ENHANCE” is removed from the name of the offense for which appellant was convicted, which shall now read “ASSAULT BODILY INJURY/FAMILY VIOLENCE;”
(2) the plea designation is modified to reflect that appellant pleaded “not true” to the State’s motion to adjudicate; and
(3) the “terms of plea bargain” section is modified by removing “8 YEARS TDCJ” and replacing it with “N/A.”
As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 21st day of October, 2019.