COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS
SARENA E

. PERKINS , § § No. 08

- 1 5

- 00 209

- C R 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 affir m the judgment as so modified. FACTUAL SUMMARY In 2011, Appellant was charged by indictment with the offense of rob bery. 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, th e State filed a n ame nded 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 allegation s that Appellant had violated C ondition (a) by committing the offenses of aggravated assault and fail ure - 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 adjudi cate 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 supervisi on, 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 allegati ons 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 C ondition (a) by committing these two new offenses even though the State a bandoned the se 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 T EX .R.A PP
. 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). Accor dingly, 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 s o modified, is affirmed.

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice April 27, 2016 Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ. (Do Not Publish)