AFFlRIiEl) as Modified; Opinion Filed September 26, 2012.

in The 

## (!niirt uf Aptiimhi 

## 1ttrtrt uf tt 

## Iat1a No. 05-12-00219-CR No. 05-12-00220-CR
ANGEL AGUILAR, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F10-45384-R, F10-45385-R 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Richter, and Lang Opinion By Justice Lang Angel Aguilar waived ajury and pleaded guilty to delivery ofheroin in an amount offour grams ormore but less than 200 grams and possession with intentto deliverheroinin an amount of fourgrams ormore but less than 200 grams. See TEx. HEALTH& SAFETY CODEANN. 

## § 481.1 12(a). (d) (West 2010). The trial court assessedpunishment at eightyears’ imprisonment and a $500 fine in each case. In three points oferror, appellant contends the deadly weapon finding should be deleted in one case, and thejudgments should be modified to show he entered open pleas. We modify the trial court’sjudgments and affirm as modified. The background ofthe cases and the evidence admittedattrial are wellknownto theparties, andwetherefore limitrecitation ofthe facts.We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule ofAppellate Procedure 47.4 because the law to he applied in the case is well settled.
DIADLY WEroN FINDING In 

### his first point oferror, appellant contends the judgment in cause no. 05—1 2—00220—CR should he 

### modified to delete the affirmative deadlyweapon finding. The State responds the record contains sufficient evidence to support the deadly weapon finding. Article 42.12, section 3g(a)(2) octhe Texas Code of Criminal Procedure permits the entry ofa deadlyweapon finding when it is shown that a defendant used or exhibited a deadly weapon in the commission ofthe offense. SeeTEX. CODE CIUM. Pioc. ANN. 

### art. 42.12. 3g(a)(2) (West Supp. 2011). A deadly weapon means a firearm or anything that in the manner ofits use or intended use is capable ofcausing death or serious bodily 

### injury. TEx. PENAL CODE ANN 

### § l.07(a)(17) (West Supp. 2012), In the context ofa deadly weapon finding, the term “use” means any employment of
a deadly weapon. even simple possession. ifthat possession facilitates the associated felony. See Coleman v. State, 145 S.W.3d 649, 652 (Tex. Crim, App. 2004); Smith v. State, 176 S.W.3d 907, 919 (Tex. 2005, pet. refd). The indictment alleged appellant used or exhibited a deadly weapon, a firearm, during commission ofthe offense. Appellant pleaded guilty andjudicially confessed to the offense as alleged in the indictment. Appellant’sjudicial confession and stipulation ofevidence tracks the language in the indictment, including the use and exhibition of a deadly weapon, a firearm. Appellant’sjudicial confession sufficiently supports the deadly weapon finding contained in the judgment. See Pitts v. State, 916 S.W.2d 507, 5 10 (Tex. Crirn. App. 1996) (it is well settled that a judicial confession, standing alone, is sufficientto sustain a conviction upon a guiltyplea); see also Alexander v. State, 868 S.W.2d 356, 360 (Tex. App.—DalIas 1993, no pet.). We conclude theevidence presented is sufficient to Support the affirmative deadly weapon finding. We overrule appellant S fii-st point of error. MOnIFY .JUDGMENTS In his second and third points oferror, appellant contends thejudgments should be modified to show he entered “open” guilty pleas and did not have a plea agreement. The State agrees appellant is entitled to have thejudgments modified as he requests. The judgments state there was aplea agreement for eight years’ imprisonment. The record shows there was no plea bargain agreement in either case. Thus, thejudgments are incorrect. We sustain appellant’s second and third points oferror. We modify thejudgments to show the terms of pleabargainwere “open.” SeeTEx. R. Api. P.43.2(b); Biglev

### v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27—28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); 

### Asherrv v. State, 8 13 S.W.2d 526, 529-30 (Tex. App.—DaIlas 1 991, pet. refd). We note there are two othererrors containedinthejudgment forcauseno. 05-12-00220-CR. First, thejudgmentdoes not show a fine. The record shows the trial courtorallypronounced a $500 fine in each case when it found appellant guilty and imposed the eight-year sentences. When a conflict exists between the oral pronouncement and the writtenjudgment, the oral pronouncement controls. 

### See C’ojjy v. State, 979 S.W.2d 326, 328 (Tex. Crim, App. 1998). We modify the judgment in cause no. 05-12-00220-CR to include the $500 fine. 

### See TEx. R. App. p. 43.2(b); Bigley, 865 S.W.2d at 27-28; 

### Asberry, 813 S.W.2d at 529-30. Thejudgment in cause no. 05-12-00220-CR identifies the offense for which appellant was convicted as “delivery controlled substance heroin 4G.” Appellant was indicted for and pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver heroin in an amount offour grams or more but less than 200 grams. We modify thejudgment to show the correct name ofthe offense for which appellant
was convicted is “possession with intent to deliverheroin 4G.” 

### Id.CONCLUSION In causeno. 05-12-002 1 9-CR, we modify thejudgmentto show the terms ofpleabargain are “open.” As modified, we affirm the trial court’sjudgment. In cause no. 05-12-00220—CR, we modify thejudgmentto show: (1) the name ofthe offense is “possessionwith intentto deliverheroin4G;” (2) the terms ofpleabargain are “open;” and (3)the fine is $500. As modified, we affirm the trial court’sjudgment.

DOUGLAI S. LANG / JUST1C” Do Not Publish TEX. R. Apr. P. 47 12021 9F.U05

-4-

### Qttnir( 

## uf Aiiahj iiftI! Diitritt uf Jcxui at 

## at1a JUDGMENT ANGEL AGUILAR, Appellant

o. 05—l2-002 19-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court ofDallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. F 1 O-45384-R). Opinion delivered by Justice Lang, Justices Bridges and Richter participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion ofthis date, the judgment ofthe trial court is MODIFIED as follows: The section entitled “Terms ofPlea Bargain” is modified to show “Open.” As modified, we AFFIRM the trial 

### court’s judgment.

Judgment entered September 26, 2012.

DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTI