Affirmed as Modified; Opinion Filed January 17, 2013.

In The 

## Qlourt of ppat Jfift Itritt 

## ofJJxa at afta No. 05-12-00609-CR No. 05-12-00610-CR LACEDRICK LASHAWN SMITH, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial 1)istrict Court Dallas County, Texas 

### I iial Court Cause Nos 1 

### 10-60836-S, F10-60837-S MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices FitzGerald, Fillmore, and Evans Opinion by Justice Evans Lacedrick Lashawn Smith appeals from the adjudication of his guilt for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and continuous violence against the family. See TEx. PENAL CODE ANN. 

## § 22.02(a)(2), 25.11(a) (West 2011). In six points of error, appellant contends the judgments should be modified to correct several errors. We modify the trial court’sjudgments and affirm as modified. The background ofthe cases and the evidence admitted at trial are well known to the parties, and we therefore limit recitation ofthe facts. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule ofAppellate Procedure 47.4 because the law to be applied in the
case is well settled.

### After appellant 

### waived ajury. he pleaded guilty 

### to aggravated 

### assault with a deadly weapon. a machete, and continuous violence against his family, and pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph. Pursuant to plea 

### agreements, the trial court deferred adjudicating guilt. 

### placed appellanton six years’ conununity supervision in each case. and assessed a $3,000 

### fine in the aggravated 

### assault case. 

### The State latermovedto adjudieate guilt, alleging appellantviolated several conditions ofhis community supervision. Appellantpleaded not true to 

### the allegations. Following ahearing, the trial court found some ofthe allegations true and adjudicated appellant guilty in each ease. The court assessed punishment at fourteen 

### years’ imprisonment on the aggravated assault convietion, and assessed seven years’ imprisonment on the continuous violenceconviction. In his first fourpoints oferror, appellant contends thejudgments should be modified to show he pleaded not true to the allegations in the motions to adjudicate and that there were no plea bargain agreements. The State agrees with the requestedmodifications. Therecord shows appellantpleaded not trueto the allegations in the State’s motion to adjudicate. Thejudgments. however, state appellantpleadedtrueto the motions andrecites plea bargainterms. We sustain appellant’s firstfourpoints ofenot We modifythe trial court’sjudgments to showthepleas to the motions to adjudicate were nottrue, and the terms ofpleabargain are “none.” See TEx. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigky t’. 

### State, 865 S.W.2d26,27—28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asbenyv. State, 813 S.W.2d526, 529—30(Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d). In his fifth and sixthpoints oferror, appellantcontendsthejudgments shouldbemodified to 

### show the specific conditions he was found to 

### have violated. The State agrees with the requestedmodifications. Inits amendedmotions to adjudicate, the State allegedeightviolations, includingtestingpositive formarijuanaand cocaineonthreedifferentdates andbeingdelinquent -2-on commumty supervision fees, During the hearing on the motions, the trial judge stated 

### he would not revoke appellant’s community supervision and adjudicate his guilt based upon the drug tests or fees because he had already dealt with those allegations in a previous hearing and ordered appellant into drug treatment. The trial court heard evidence regarding the remaining four allegations, afterwhich the trial judge stated, “1 find the allegations to be true.” The judgments recite the trial court found appellant violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision as set out in the State’s amended motions to adjudicate. Because the record shows the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty based on only four of the alleged violations, the judgments are not correct. We sustain appellant’s fifth and sixth points oferror. We modify the judgments to show the trial court found appellant violated conditions (d), (I), (s), and (w) ofhis community supervision. See Tux. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley, 865 S.W.2d at 27— 28; Asherrv, 81.3 S.W.2d at 529—30. As modified, we affirm the trial

Do Not Publish TEx. R. App. P. 47 120609F.U05 JUSTICE

## Qloiirt of Ztppca ifittlj itritt ofEtxa at at1a
JUDGMENT
LACEDRICK LASI-IAWN SMITH, Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Appellant Court ofDallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. El0-60$36-S). No. 05—1 2-00609-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Evans. Justices FitzGerald and Fillmore THE STATE OFFEXAS, Appellee participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODiFIED as follows: The section entitled “Plea to Motion to Adjudicate” is modified to show “Not True” The section entitled “Terms ofPlea Bargain” is modified to show “NoneS” The section entitled “(5) While on community supervision, Defendant violated the terms and conditions of community supervision” is modified to show “(5) While on community supervision, Defendant violated conditions (d), (1), (s), and (w) ofcommunity supervision.” As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment. Judgment entered January 17, 2013.

## Qlourt of tppat 

# ifittj itract of Z!Eexa at 

## afta
JUDGMENT
LACEDRICK LASHAWN SMITH, Appellant No. 05-12-0061 0-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS. Appellee Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court ofDallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. FI0-60837-S). Opinion delivered by Justice Evans, Justices FitzGerald and Fillmore partic patirig.

to!!o\vs: Based on the Court’s opinion ofthis date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIEI) as The section entitled “Plea to Motion to Adjudicate” is modified to show “Not True.” The section entitled “Terms ofPlea Bargain” is modified to show “None.” The section entitled “(5) While on community supervision, Defendant violated the terms and conditions ol community supervision” is modified to show “(5) While on community supervision, Decendant violated conditions (ci), (1), (s), and (w) ofcornnmnity supervision.” As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment. Judgment entered January 17, 2013.

ENS