COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

SARENA E. PERKINS, §

§

No. 08-15-00209-CR

Appellant,

§

Appeal from the

v.

§

Criminal District Court No. 3

THE STATE OF TEXAS, of Dallas County, Texas

Appellee.

§

§

(TC# F-1152213-J)

O P I N I O N

Sarena E. Perkins appeals from a judgment adjudicating her guilty of robbery and 

sentencing her to serve ten years in prison. We modify the judgment to accurately reflect those

conditions of community supervision the trial court found Appellant violated, and we affirm the 

judgment as so modified.

FACTUAL SUMMARY

In 2011, Appellant was charged by indictment with the offense of robbery. She waived 

her right to a jury trial and entered a negotiated plea of guilty. In accordance with the plea 

bargain, the trial court placed Appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for 

seven years. In May 2015, the State filed an amended motion to proceed with adjudication of 

guilt alleging multiple violations of the terms and conditions of community supervision. More 

specifically, the amended motion alleged that Appellant violated Conditions (a), (b), (j), (l), (n), 
- 2 -

(q), and (t) of the community supervision order.

At the hearing, Appellant entered an open plea of true to the motion to adjudicate, but the 

State abandoned the allegations that Appellant had violated Condition (a) by committing the 

offenses of aggravated assault and failure-to-identify. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial 

court expressly accepted Appellant’s plea of true with respect to all of the allegations except for 

the alleged violations of Condition (a). The trial court granted the State’s motion to adjudicate 

guilt, adjudicated Appellant guilty of robbery, and assessed her punishment at imprisonment for 

a term of ten years.

MODIFICATION OF THE JUDGMENT

In her sole issue, Appellant contends that the judgment should be modified because it 

erroneously reflects that she violated Condition (a). The State joins Appellant’s request to 

modify the judgment.

The judgment adjudicating guilt recites the trial court’s finding that Appellant, while on 

community supervision, violated the terms and conditions of supervision “as set out in the 

State’s AMENDED Motion to Adjudicate Guilt as follows: See attached Motion to Adjudicate 

Guilt.” The amended motion to adjudicate guilt attached to the judgment includes the allegations 

that Appellant violated Condition (a) by committing aggravated assault and failure-to-identify. 

When the judgment adjudicating guilt is read as a whole, it inaccurately reflects that the trial 

court found true the allegations that Appellant violated Condition (a) by committing these two 

new offenses even though the State abandoned these allegations at the revocation hearing and the 

trial court did not find these allegations to be true.

A court of appeals has the power to modify an incorrect judgment to make the record 
- 3 -

speak the truth when the necessary information is available to the court. See TEX.R.APP.P.

43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993); Estrada v. State, 334 

S.W.3d 57, 63-64 (Tex.App.--Dallas 2009, no pet). Accordingly, we sustain Issue One and 

modify the judgment adjudicating guilt to reflect that the trial court found that Appellant violated 

only Conditions (b), (j), (l), (n), (q), and (t) of the terms and conditions of community 

supervision. The judgment, as so modified, is affirmed.

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice

April 27, 2016

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)