Tammy Lee Davila v. State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 6, 2009
Docket11-08-00104-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Tammy Lee Davila v. State of Texas (Tammy Lee Davila v. State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Tammy Lee Davila v. State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

Opinion filed August 6, 2009

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ____________

No. 11-08-00104-CR __________

TAMMY LEE DAVILA, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 29th District Court

Palo Pinto County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 10,890

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Upon a plea of true to the State’s motion to adjudicate, the trial court adjudicated Tammy Lee Davila1 guilty of the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The court assessed punishment at confinement for five years. We affirm. In her sole issue on appeal, appellant contends that the judgment should be reformed because the trial court failed to give her adequate credit for time served. The judgment indicates that

1 We note that appellant’s name on the indictment is “Tammy Lee Davila” and that appellant’s name on the judgment adjudicating guilt is “Tammy Gray Davila.” appellant received credit for 130 days. Appellant asserts that she should be given credit for additional time spent in jail for offenses committed after she was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision and before she was adjudicated guilty and sentenced in this case. Pursuant to TEX . CODE CRIM . PROC. ANN . art. 42.03, § 2(a) (Vernon Supp. 2008), a court shall give credit for time spent “in jail for the case.” The record does not show that the intervening incarcerations were for this aggravated assault case but, rather, were for separate offenses: a driving while intoxicated offense in Navarro County and a theft offense in Tarrant County. Thus, the record does not support appellant’s contention, and we cannot determine from this record that appellant is entitled to the additional credit. See Steinocher v. State, 127 S.W.3d 160, 163 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. dism’d, untimely filed). Appellant’s issue is overruled. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

RICK STRANGE JUSTICE

August 6, 2009 Do not publish. See TEX . R. APP . P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Strange, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Steinocher v. State
127 S.W.3d 160 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Tammy Lee Davila v. State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tammy-lee-davila-v-state-of-texas-texapp-2009.