### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 08 -0 01 57 -C R

______________________________ PATRI CK SHANE STACKS, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appea l from the 5th J udicial District Court

Bow ie County , Texas Trial Court No. 00F 0245-005

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , M o s e l e y

an d C o r n e l i u s * , JJ. Me mor and

um O pin ion

by Chi e f Jus tic e Mo rr iss

________________________________________ *Wil liam J . Cornelius, Retired, Sitti ng by Assignme ntDuringthat home visit, S tacks reportedly admitted to viewing "se x ually oriented material 1 for a pproxi mately

a month and a ha lf." Ba sed on this disco v er y , community supervision offic er Da vid Rod g e rs e xec ute d a

n a ff ida vit ave rr in g S tac ks vio late d a c on dit ion

of his c omm

un ity su pe rv isi on . T he tr ia l c ou rt con duc te d a he ari ngon

the mot ion

to r e vo ke Sta c ks ' c omm un ity supervision. Rodge rs testified he ha d war ned Stacks a

bout viewing sexually

expli cit materia ls after S tac ks fai ledsev eral po ly graph e x ami nat io ns and "was d is ho nes t ab ou t t hi s i ss ue. " 2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Ov e r e ig ht y e ars a g o, Patr ic k Sha ne Sta c ks , a ft e r e xpos inghis g e nit a ls t o a c hil d, ple d guil ty to the third-deg ree felony offe nse of indec ency

with a child, was giv en a ten- y ear suspended
se n te n c e , an d

w a s p la c e d

o nte ny e ar s o f

c o mm un it y s u p e r v is io nw it

hv ar io u s c o n d it io n s . O ne
co n d i t i o n o f th e co m mun i ty s u p erv i s i o n fo rb ad e S t ac k s fr o m p o s s es s i n g, ac qu i ri n g , o b t a i n i n g, revie wing , or re taining se x ually oriented c ompact disks or di sks that portrayed nudit y of an adult or child. On April 30, 2008, off icer s visited St acks' home and found the re a collection of DVDs: at 1 lea st seven

of tho se we re no te d s pe c if

ic a lly to c on ta in a du lt n

ud ity . M any

we re no te d to c on ta in "strongsexualit y ." T here afte r, on the St at e's motion, the trial court enter ed judg ment revoking Sta c ks ' c omm

un ity su pe rv isi on and se nte nc e d h im t o e ig ht ye ars ' c on fi ne me nt. Stacks now appe als from this judgme nt and arg ues t hat the condition forbiddinghim from vie wi ngmate ri a ls p or

tr ayinga du lt n

ud ity wa s n ot r e a so na

bly re late d to t reat men t a sso c iate d w ith his conviction for indece ncy with a child, that the condition violate d due proce ss sinc e there was no fac tual basis in the rec ord t o support the i mpositi on of such a condition, and that the c ondition was an unconstitutional prior re straint of his fre edom of e x pression. F inally , Stacks reque sts refor mationA t r ia l c o u r t has broad disc retion in deter mining conditions of community supervision. T EX . 2 C O D E C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art . 4 2. 12 , § 11 (V e rn on Sup p. 20 08 ); Mc

Ar thu r v . S

tate , 1 S. W. 3 d

3 2 3, 331 (Tex. App.—For

t Worth 1999, no pet.). In fac t, Article 42.12 of t he Tex as Code of Criminal Procedur e all o ws a t ri al court to " impose any rea sonable c ondition that is desig ned to protec t or restore the community , protec t or restore the victim, or punish, reha bilitate, or ref

orm the def

endant." T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . a rt . 4 2. 12 , § 11 (a ); Sp e th , 6 S.W .3d at 533.

3 of the jud g me nt r e vo kin g c omm un ity su pe rv isi on sin c e it inc or

re c tly la be le d in de c e nc y

wi th a c hil d
a s a vio latio n of Se c tio n 22 .1 1 of the Te xas P e na l Co de , r a the r t ha n Se c tio n 2 1. 11 , a

nd inc or re c tly cate g orized the offe nse as a second- deg ree felony , rathe r than a third-deg ree felony
. SeeT EX . P EN AL C ODE ANN . § 21.11(d) ( Ver non 2003). We a ff ir m th e re vo c a tio n b e c a

us e (1 ) S ta c ks wa ive d a ll c ha lle ng e s to the c on dit ion s o f h is
c omm un ity su pe rv isi on ; a lth ou g h w e re fo rm the jud g me nt b e c a

us e (2 ) t he judg me nt i nc or

re c tly
re c ite s th e se c tio n numb e r a nd the of fe ns e le ve l. ( 1) Stacks W

aived All Challenges to the Conditions of His Community Supervision An awa rd of c ommunity

supervision is a contra ctual privileg e ente red into betwe en a court and a de fenda

nt. Sp e th v . S

tate , 6 S.W .3d 530, 534 (Tex. C ri m . Ap p . 1 9 9 9 ). C onditions of community

supervision not objected to ar e af firmatively

acc epted a s terms of the c ontrac t. Id. at 2 534. Th e law i s w e ll s e ttl e d th a t a de fe nd ant c ann ot c ha llen ge a con dit ion of c omm un ity supervision for the first time at a re vocation proc eeding
. Id. a t 53 5; Va le v . S tate , 486 S.W .2d 370 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 72 ); Loz an o v . S tate , No s. 0 4 -0 4- 00 53 4- CR, 04 -0 4- 00 53 5- CR, 04 -0 4- 05 36 -C R, 04 -0 4- 00 53 7- CR, 20 06 WL16 63 64 , at *2 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa n An ton io Jan. 25 , 20 06 , pe t. r e f' d) ; In re4

V.A. , 140 S.W .3d 858, 860 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 2004, no pet.) ( defe ndant could not object that
c on dit ion of c omm

un ity su pe rv isi on wa s unre a so na

ble a t re vo c a tio n h eari ng); Lop e z v . S tate , 46 S .W.3d 476, 480 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref' d) (" Under Sp e th , th e r e f o re, w e ar e pr oh ibi te d f

ro m he ari ng on app eal a c ha lle ng e to t

he va lid ity

of a c on dit ion

of c omm un ity supervision unless an objec tion to that condition w as made at the time the condition was imposed, pr e suma bly a t se nte nc ing ." ); Mc

In ty rev . S

tate , N o . 0 1
- 9 8
- 0 0 1 6 3
- CR , 2 0 0 0 WL 4 8 9 4 1 2 , a t * 5 ( T e x. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 27, 20 0 0 , n o pet.) (me m. op., not designated for publication) (" Appellant' s alleg ation that some of his conditions of community

supervision wer e vague, invalid,
and /or un c on sti tut ion a l c on c e rn a pp e llant's c onvic tio n a

nd punis hme nt, no t th e re vo c a tio n o f h is community supervision. There fore , these matter s should have bee n raised by timely appea l after

he
wa s plac e d o n c omm

un ity su pe rv isi on ." ); Ed

war ds v . S tate , N o . 0 6
- 9 9
- 0 0 1 1 3
- CR , 2 0 0 0 WL 1130076, at *2 (Te x . App.—Texarkana Aug . 8, 2000, pet. re f' d) (mem. op., not desig nated f or pu bli c a tio n) ; An tho ny

v . S tate , 962 S.W .2d 242, 245–46 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 1998, no pet.). A bri ef r e vi e w of

t he i s s ue s on a ppe a l r e ve a l s t ha t t he y c onc e r n S t a c ks ' c onvi c t i on a nd puni s hme nt , no t t he r e voc a t i on of hi s c ommuni t y s upe r vi s i on. S t a c ks ' c ompl a i nt s , t ha t t he c ondi t i on
r e qui r i ng hi m t o r e f

r a i n f r om vi e wi ng or pos s e s s i ng c ompa c t di s ks de pi c t i ng a dul t nud i t y w as
un r eason able, viola t ed d ue p r ocess, and r est r ai ned his f r eedo m o f

exp r essi on , ar e al l m at t er s t hat sho uld h ave b een r ai sed ei g ht y ear s ag o w hen t he co nd i t i on co m plai ned o f w as imp osed
. Becau se S ta c k s ' co m p la in ts a re u n tim e ly , w e ca n n o t ad d re s s th e m . Se e Ed war ds , 20 00 W L 11 3007 6, a t *2
.5

( 2) The Judgme nt Incorrec tly Rec ites the Sec tion Number and the Offense Lev el Stacks also see ks ref

ormation of the judg ment revokinghis commu n i t y s u pervision. The Texas Rules of Appellate Proc edure g ive this Court authority t o ref orm judg ments and cor

rec t ty pog raphic al errors to m ake the rec ord speak the truth. T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 3. 2; Fr e nc h v . S tate , 830 S.W. 2d 60 7, 60 9 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 92 ); Pe e k v . S tate , No. 06-08-00069- CR, 2008 W L5090344, at *1–2 (Tex. A

pp.—Texarkana Dec
. 4, 2008, no pet. h.) (re forming judgme nt to ref lect co rr ect de g re e of

of fe ns e ); Ba tt lev . S

tate , N o . 0 6
- 0 7
- 0 0 1 4 8
- CR , 2 0 0 8 WL 4 8 2 3 4 3 , a t * 3 ( T e x. App.—Texarkana

Fe b. 25, 2008, no p et.) (me m. op., not designated for publication) (re forming jud g me nt t o r e fl e c t pr op e r s tatut e un de r wh ic h de fe nd ant sho uld have be e n c on vic te d) ; Gray v . S tate , 628 S.W .2d 228, 233 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1982, pet. ref' d). Although Stac ks was c onvicted of inde cenc y with a child, an of

fense found in Section 21.11 of the Te x as Penal Code, the judg ment revoking community supervision rec ites Section 22.11 as the

" statut e fo r of

fe ns e ." Se c tio n 22. 11 of the Te xas Pen a l Code , en tit le d " Ha ra ssm e nt B y

Pe rs on s in Certain Corre ctional Fa cilities; Harassment o f Public Servant," does not apply . We refor m the judgme nt by replacing "22.11" with "21.11," to refle ct conviction under the cor rec t statute. Additionally , indece ncy

with a child by

means of e x posure is a t h i rd -degr ee f elony offe nse. T EX . P EN A L C ODE ANN . § 21.11(d). The re is nothing in the rec ord to sug g est that Stacks' conviction was
e n h an c e d
. T hu s , w e a l s o r e f o r mth e j u d g m e n tt o r e f

l e c tth a tth e o f

f e n s e w a s a

th i r d

- d e g r e e f

e l o n y,
n o ta s e c o n d

- d e g r e e f

e l o n y.6

As ref ormed, the judg ment is affirme d.

J o s hR
. M o r r i s s , III Chief J ustice Date Submitted: J anuar y 12, 2009 Date D ecide d: J anuar y 14, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh