NUMBER 13-12-00171-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

 

DANIEL ARMADILLO, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. 

 

On appeal from the 94th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rose Vela 

This is an appeal from an order revoking appellant, Daniel Armadillo’s, community 

supervision. Appellant was charged with two counts of indecency with a child by contact. 

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11 (West 2011).1 He pleaded guilty and was placed on 

 

1 The judgment adjudicating guilt incorrectly cites to section "21.22" of the Texas Penal Code. 

This section does not exist. The judgment should be modified to reflect that appellant was convicted under 

section 21.11 of the Texas Penal Code. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2; Rhoten v. State, 299 S.W.3d 349, 355 

(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009, no pet.) (granting appellate courts authority to modify judgments sua sponte, 
2

deferred-adjudication community supervision for four years. Thereafter, the State 

moved to revoke his community supervision, alleging several violations. Appellant 

pleaded "true" to several of the alleged violations; the trial court adjudicated him guilty and 

sentenced him to eight years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional 

Division. By one issue, appellant urges that the trial court violated his due process rights 

when it failed to consider the full range of punishment available to him upon revocation. 

We affirm the judgment as modified. 

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The proper standard of review of a trial court's decision concerning revocation of a 

defendant's probation is one of abuse of discretion. Forrest v. State, 805 S.W.2d 462, 

464 n. 2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Due process requires a neutral and detached hearing 

body or officer. Brumit v. State, 206 S.W.3d 639, 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Absent a 

clear showing of bias, a trial court’s action will be presumed to have been correct. Id.

II. ANALYSIS

Appellant argues by his sole issue that the trial court failed to consider the full 

range of punishment in this case. During the hearing on the motion to revoke, the trial 

court heard testimony from appellant’s probation officer, appellant and appellant’s wife. 

At the hearing’s conclusion, the court stated:

I mean, you’ve been here a couple of times, the first M.T.R involved 

contact with minors. One of them was contact with the same 

granddaughter. The other one was a sixteen year old granddaughter, who 

probably is of age by now, and then the next time we were here not a lot was 

proven, but we are here today and he’s having contact once again, along 

with some other issues. Drinking is a problem in this case because 

it—certain inhibitions.

 

to correct typographical errors, and make the record speak the truth).
3

All right, the Court having heard the evidence, defendant has plead 

true, finds the allegations to be true, hereby adjudicates defendant, revokes 

his community supervision, sentences him to eight years in the Department 

of Criminal Justice Institutional Division on both counts. 

Appellant was convicted pursuant to section 21.11(a) of the penal code, a second 

degree felony punishable by a term of not more than twenty years or less than two years. 

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.33 (West 2011). The trial court’s comments here, as in 

Brumit, do not support appellant’s argument that the trial court predetermined appellant’s 

sentence. There is absolutely nothing in the record to show any bias or partiality on the 

trial court’s part. Appellant’s issue is overruled.

III. CONCLUSION

The judgment of the trial court is modified to reflect that he was convicted pursuant 

to section 21.11 of the Texas Penal Code, and, as modified, it is affirmed.

ROSE VELA

Justice

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

23rd day of August, 2012.