The State Requests Oral Argument if Appellant Requests Oral Argument. NO S. 06
- 14 -00225-CR, 06- 14 -00226- CR,

& 06
- 14 -00227- CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT TEXARKANA

________________________ ELIZABETH MENDOZA, Appellant

vs. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________ On appeal from the Criminal District Court. No. 6

of Dallas County, Texas Cause Nos

. F12-61870-X, F13-34344-X, & F13-40734-X

________________________ STATE’S BRIEF

______________________ __

Counsel of Record: SUSAN HAWK LARISSA T. ROEDER Criminal District Attorney Assistant District Attorney Dallas County, Texas State Bar No. 24010357 133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB- 19 Dallas, Texas 75207-4399

(214) 653-3627 ( Phone ) (214) 653-3643 ( Fax )

ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS ACCEPTED 06-14-00225-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 5/21/2015 3:28:54 PM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERKTABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... i INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

................................ ................................ ............................... ii STATEMENT OF THE CASE

................................ ................................ ........................... 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

................................ ................................ ........................... 3 ARGUMENT

................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 3 Response to Appellant’s Sole Issue on Appeal

................................ ................................ 3 THE TRIAL COURT’S WRITTEN JUDGMENTS SHOULD BE REFORMED TO CORRECTLY REFLECT THAT APPELLANT’S PLEAS OF TRUE WERE ENTERED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF PLEA BARGAIN AGREEMENTS.

................................ ................................ ........ 3 PRAYER

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 5 CERTI FICATE OF SERVICE AND WORD

- COUNT COMPLIANCE

........................... 5ii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Abron v. St ate , 997 S.W.2d 281 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1998, pet. ref’d)

................................ ................... 4 Asberry v. State , 813 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d)

................................ ................... 4 Bigley v. State , 865 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993)

................................ ................................ .......... 4 Nolan v. State , 39 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.)

................................ ..... 41

TO TH E HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: The State of Texas submits this brief in response to the brief of appellant , Elizabeth Mendoza

. STATEMENT OF THE CAS E A grand jury issued an indictment in cause number F12

- 61870

- X, charging appellant with aggravated assaul t with a deadly weapon. (CR.1:13). 1 On May 2, 2013, appellant ple a d ed guilty and was placed on two (2) years ’ deferred adjudication community supervision. (CR.1: 35

- 36, 40

- 41). The State thereafter
filed a motion to proceed to an adjudicat ion of guilt

. (CR.1:53

- 54). On No vember 13, 2014, appellant entered a non

- negotiated plea of true to the allegations in the State’s motion. 2 (CR.1:60). The trial court entered judgment adjudicating guilt and assessed punishment at six (6) years’ imprisonment. (CR.1:56). A grand jury is sued an indictment in cause number F13

- 34344

- X, charging appellant with possession of a controlled substance less than one gram. (CR.2:7). On July 2, 2014, appellant ple a d ed guilty to a lesser

- included class A misdemeanor
offense and , in accordance with a negotiated plea agreement, the trial court placed

1 C.R.1 refers to the clerk’s record in cause number F12

- 61870

- X (06

- 1 4

- 00225

- CR) ; CR.2 refers to the clerk’s record in cause number F13

- 34344

- X (06

- 14

- 00226

- CR) ; and CR.3 refers to the clerk’s record in cause number F13

- 40734

- X (06

- 14

- 00227

- CR)

. 2 The cler k ’ s records on appeal do not contain the second half of any of appe llant’s three plea agreement s
. The State has brought the matter to the attention of the clerk of the court, and has asked the District Clerk ’ s Office to supplement the clerk ’ s records on appeal with complete cop ies of appellant ’ s November 13, 2014, p lea agreement.2

appellant on ten (10) months ’ deferred adjudication community supervision. (CR.2:19

- 22). The State thereafter filed a motion to proceed to an adjudicat ion of guilt. (CR.2:36

- 37). On November 13, 2014, appellant entered a non
- negotiated plea of true to the allegations in the State’s motion. (CR.2:44). The trial court
entered judgment adjudicating guilt and assessed punishment at one (1) year
confinement in the county jail. (CR.2:38

- 39). A grand jury issued an indictment in cause number F13

- 40734

- X, charging appellant with unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. (CR.3:11). On May 2, 2013 , appellant ple a d ed guilty and on May 22, 2013, the trial court placed appellant on two (2) years ’ deferred adjudication community supervision

. (CR.3:25 , 34

- 36).
The State thereafter filed a motion to proceed to an adjudicat ion of guilt

. (CR.3:47

- 48). On November 13, 2014 , appellant entered a non

- negotiated plea of
true to the alle gations in the State’s motion. (CR.3:53). The trial court entered judgment adjud icating guilt and assessed punishment at ten ( 10 ) months in the state jail. (CR.3:50

- 51).3 STATEMENT OF FACTS The State filed motions to revoke appellant’s deferred adjudication community supervision in three separate cases. Appellant entered a plea of true in each case without the benefit of a plea bargain agreement. The trial court adjudicated guilt and sentenced appellant to a term of confinement in each of the three cases. All three of the court’s written judgments incorrectly reflect that the

sen tences imposed were based on negotiated plea agreement s
. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT This Court should reform the written judgment in each of appellant’s cases to correctly reflect that appellant entered a plea of true in each case without the benefit of a ple a bargain agreement.
ARGUMENT Response to Appellant’s Sole Issue on Appeal
THE TRIAL COURT ’ S WRITTEN JUDGMENTS SHOULD BE REFORMED TO CORRECTLY REFLECT THAT APPELLANT’S PLEAS OF TRUE WERE ENTERED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF PLEA BARGAIN AGREEMENTS.
The State agrees that the judg ment in all three of appellant’s convictions should be reformed to correctly reflect the appellant entered her pleas of true without the benefit of a plea agreement.4 Applicable Law Where the record contains the necessary information to do so, the court on appeal has the authority to modify incorrect judgments. Tex. R. App. P. 43.2 (b) ; Bigley v. State , 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) ; Abron v. State , 997 S.W.2d 281, 282 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1998, pet. ref’d)

. “An appellate court has the power to correct and reform a trial court judgment ‘to make the record speak the truth when it has the necessary data and information to do so, or make any appropriate order as the law and nature of the case may require.’” Nol an v. State , 39 S.W.3d 697, 698 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (quoting
Asbe rry v. State , 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d) ). Application of Law to the Facts The record in each of appellant’s cases reflect that appellant enter ed an “open plea” of true. The judgments, however, each incorrectly show a plea agreement to a term of confinement that matches the punishments actually imposed by the trial cou rt. Becau se this Court has the information to do so, the State respectfully joins in appellant’s request that the judgment in each of her three cases should be modified to show appellant entered an “open plea” to the allegations in the State’s motions to proceed wi th an adjudication of guilt.5 PRAYER The State prays this Honorable Court will reform the judgment s in cause numbers F12

- 61870

- X (06

- 1 4

- 00225

- CR) , F13

- 34344

- X (06

- 14

- 00226

- CR) ; and
F13

- 40734

- X (06

- 14

- 00227

- CR) , and affirm as modified.

Respectfully submitted,

S USAN HAWK LARISSA T. ROEDER Criminal District At torney Assistant District Attorney State Bar No. 00791886 State Bar No. 24010357 Dallas County, Texas 133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB

- 19 Dallas, Texas 75207

- 4399 (214) 653

- 3627 (phone) (214) 653

- 3643 (fax) larissa.roeder@dal lascounty.org

CERTIFICATE OF SERVI CE AND WORD
- COUNT COMPLIANCE A copy of this brief has been served on Bruce Anton , attorney for appellant, 2311 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 250, Dallas, Texas 75201, via electronic mail at ba@sualaw.com on May 21, 2015

. I further certify that this document contains 1,0 69 words, inclusive of all contents.

Larissa T. Roeder