Zachary Michael Lee v. the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedFebruary 5, 2024
Docket05-23-00352-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Zachary Michael Lee v. the State of Texas (Zachary Michael Lee v. the 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
Zachary Michael Lee v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

Modified and Affirmed and Opinion Filed February 5, 2024

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00352-CR

ZACHARY MICHAEL LEE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 001-86283-2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Carlyle, Goldstein, and Breedlove Opinion by Justice Breedlove The trial court found appellant guilty of Failure to Identify Fugitive

Intentionally Giving False Information in violation of Texas Penal Code 38.02

(b)(2), (d)(2) and was sentenced to 15 days in county jail. Appellant appeals,

complaining that the judgment should be modified to correctly reflect the

information required by Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.01, § 1. Concluding that the

record supports this modification, we modify the trial court’s judgment and affirm. I. BACKGROUND

On April 17, 2023, appellant appealed the trial court’s judgment that was

entered on March 30, 2023. In one issue, appellant complains that the judgment

should be modified to correctly reflect the information required by Tex. Code Crim.

Proc. art. 42.01, § 1, specifically: (a) the names of the attorneys for the State and

appellant; (b) the plea entered; and (c) the degree of the offense for which appellant

was convicted. In response, the State agrees.

II. DISCUSSION

The judgment entered in this case fails to list the names of the attorneys for

the State and Defense. Further, it ambiguously states that appellant “pleaded Guilty

or Nolo Contendere,” rather than stating which of the two pleas was entered. Finally,

the judgment does not state the degree of the offense, only that it is a “misdemeanor.”

The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure states that a judgment “shall reflect,” among

other things, the names of the attorney for the State and the defendant, the plea to

the offense charged, and the degree of offense for which the defendant was

convicted. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.01 § 1. The Article applies to

misdemeanors as well as felonies. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.01 § 3.

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

–2– 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. Here, the

record contains all the necessary information required to modify the judgment.

Therefore, we modify the judgment to reflect the following: (1) Hugh A. Fuller was

the attorney for the defendant and Assistant District Attorney Nicole DeVincenzi

was the attorney for the State; (2) appellant pleaded “guilty”; and (3) appellant was

convicted of a Class A misdemeanor.

III. CONCLUSION

We modify the trial court’s judgment and affirm as modified.

230352f.u05 /Maricela Breedlove/ Do Not Publish MARICELA BREEDLOVE TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) JUSTICE

–3– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

ZACHARY MICHAEL LEE, On Appeal from the County Court at Appellant Law No. 1, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 001-86283- No. 05-23-00352-CR V. 2022. Opinion delivered by Justice THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Breedlove. Justices Carlyle and Goldstein participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows:

Add “Hugh A. Fuller” as the attorney for the defendant; add “Nicole DeVincenzi” as the attorney for the State; change “pleaded Guilty or Nolo Contendere” to “Guilty”; and add “Class A” before “misdemeanor.”

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 5th day of February, 2024.

–4–

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

Related

Asberry v. State
813 S.W.2d 526 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Bigley v. State
865 S.W.2d 26 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Zachary Michael Lee v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zachary-michael-lee-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2024.