### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-18-00353- CR

Jason Britt Redden, Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY , 26TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT

NO. 15- 1473 -K 26, H ONO RAB LE B URT CARNES, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

J ason Br itt Redden was char g ed with assault family violence for alleg edly assaulting his g irlfriend, and the indictmen t also alleg ed that Redden had previously been convicted of a simil ar offense

. See Tex. Penal C ode § 2 2

. 0 1 (a) -(b)

. After being char g ed, R edden entere d into a plea- barg ain ag ree ment with the State in which he a g ree d to plead g uilty to the char g ed off

ense in exchang e for the State rec ommending that his adjudication of g uilt be defe rre d, and t h at he be place d on community supervision. The district court acc epted Redden’s plea, defe rre d sentenc ing, and place d him on defe rre d-ad j u d i ca t i o n community supervision. A littl e over a y ear later, the
State m o v ed t o revoke Redden’s community supervision and adjudicate his g uilt. At the end of the adjudication hear ing, the district court found three of the State’s alleg ations to be true, revoke d
Re d d e n ’ s c o mm

u n it y s u p e r v is io n , a d ju d ic a te d h is g u i l t , a n d s e n te n c e d h im to te n y e a r s ’ im p r is o n me n t.
I n one issue on appea l, Redden asser ts that the dis t ri ct court’s judgme nt adjudicating his g uiltcontains a cler ical err or and asks this Court to modify the judgme nt to co rr ec t the alleg ed err or.

We will modi fy

the district c ourt’s judgme nt a djudicating Redden’s g uilt and affir m the judgme nt as modified. 1 During the revoc ation hear ing, Redden pleade d not true to all of th e St a te ’ s r e v o c a

tion alleg ations. Howeve r, as Redden notes, the district court’s judgme nt states that Red d en p l ea d ed
true to all of the revoc ation alleg ations. I n ligh t o f t h i s d isparity , Redden arg ues that the district court’s judg ment should be ref ormed to cor

rec t the cler ical er

ror, a nd the State ag ree s. T h is Co u r t h a s th e a u th o r it y to mo d if y in c o r r e c t ju d g me n ts w

h e n it h a s th e in f

o r ma ti o n

nece ssary to do so. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State , 865 S.W .2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); see also Parker v. State , No. 0 3 -1 2 -00540-CR, 2013 WL 2631621, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin J une 7, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not desig nated for publication) (modify ing trial
court’s judgme nt revoking defe ndant’s comm u n i t y s upervision to ref lect that defe ndant pleade d
not true to revoc ation alleg ation). Acc ording ly , we s u s t ai n Redden’s issue on appea l and modify the judgme nt adjudicating Redden’s g uilt to ref l ec t t hat Redden pleade d not true to the State’s

revoc ation alleg ations.

Having sustained Redden’s issue on appea l, we modify the district court’s judgme nt adjudicating Redden’s g uilt in t he manne r set out above and af firm that judg ment as modified.

I n his brief, Redden als o asser ts that there was an err or prese nt in the district court’s 1 cer tification of his rig ht to appea l. After Redden filed his brief, this Court reque sted that the district court prepa

re a supplem ental cer

tification, and the supplemental cer tification corr ectly states that this case “is not a plea- barg ain case ” and that Redden “has the right to appea l.” Acc ording ly , we need not f urther a ddress Redde n’s ar g ument perta ining to the c ertification. 2__________________________________________ Thomas J . Ba

ker, Justi ce Be fore J ustices Goodwin, B aker , and Tria na Modified and, a s Modified, Aff irmed Filed: Apr il 24, 2019 Do Not Publish

3