### 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. 03-15-00072- CR

Clem ente A lejandro Davila, Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F CALDWELL CO UNTY, 421 ST JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 05- 118, TH E H ONO RAB LE TO DD A. B LOM ERTH, JUDGE P RESIDING

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

I n November 2006, pursuant to a plea barg ain, appellant Clemente Alejandr o Davila pled g uilty to ag g ravated sexual assault of a child and was place d on defe rred adjudication community supervision. See Tex. Penal Code § 22.021(a) (1)( B) (i), (2)( B) ; Tex. Code Crim. Proc

. art. 42.12, § 5(a)

. I n J anuar y 2015, afte r g ranting the State’s third motion to adjudicate g uilt, the trial
court adjudicate d appellant g uilty , revoke d his community supervision, and assessed his punishment
at 15 y ear s’ confine ment in the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. 1

The State’s third motion to adjudicate contained numerous alleg ations of viol at i ons of 1 supervision conditions, which included the failure to repor t to his supervision office r, chang ing his residenc e without his supervision office r’s permission, the failure to pay the fine and court costs, the failure to pay supervision fee s, the failure to pay the sexual-assault program fee s, the failure to attend an d succe ssfully complete the afte rca re program, the commission of new offe nses (possessi o n o f marijuana and failure to reg ister as a sex offe nder) , the failure to perf orm community -ser

vice work, and t h e fa i l u re to attend and succe ssfully complete the sex-offende r counseling prog ram. At the conclusion of the adjudication hear ing, at which both the State and appellant prese nted evidenc e, the trial court f

ound that appellant ha d violated the conditions of his supervision as a lleg ed.art. 42.12, § 5(b); T ex. Penal Code § 12.32. On appea l, appellant complains about err or in the

written j udg ment adjudicating g u i l t and seeks modification of t he judgment. In addition, throug h

our own revie w of the rec ord, we have fo u n d additional cler ical err ors in the written judgme nt adjudicating g uilt. We will modify the judgme nt to corr ect the cler ical err ors and, as modified, aff irm the judg ment adjudicatingg uilt.

DISCUSSIO N

I n his sole point of err or, appellant complains about err or in the judgme nt conce rning the Penal Code offe nse for which he was adjudicated. The judgme nt adjudicating g uilt states the “Of fense for which Def

endant Convicted” is “Ag g ravated Sex ual Assault/I ndece ncy Wit h a Child.” The re cord r efle cts that while appellant was originally char g ed with t wo counts of indec ency with

a child in addition to the instant ag g ravated sexual assault of a chil d , t h o s e t wo counts wer e dismiss ed pursuant to the plea- barg ain ag ree m ent. Fur ther, the rec ord ref

lects that appellant was place d on defe rre d adjudi ca t i o n comm unity supervision only for the offe nse of ag g ravated s exual assault of a child. When he was adjudicate d g uilty , he was convicted only of the offe nse of ag g rava ted sexual assault of a child. We ag ree with appellant that t h e o ff en s e reflected in the judgme nt adjudicatingg uilt is incorre ct.

I n our own revie w of the rec ord, we observe that the written judgme nt a djudicating g uilt contains additional cler i cal err ors. First, the judgme nt states the “Statute for Offe nse” is “22.021(A )(2) (B ) Penal Code.” The applicable statutory provisions for the offe nse as alleg ed in the indictment here , howeve r, also include subsection (a) (1)( B) (i) of section 22.021 of the Penal Code. Thus, the “Statute for

Offe nse” is “22.021( a)( 1)(B )(i), ( 2)(B ) Penal Code.” Second, the judg ment
2states that appe llant’s “Plea to Motion to Adjudicate” was “ True.” The re cord, how ever , does not

ref lect that appellant pled “True ” to the allegations contained in the motion to adjudicate. In fac t, the rec ord does not ref

lect a formal plea to the alleg ations at all. The rec ord does ref lect, howeve r, that the State prese nted witness testimony and evidenc e to prove the violations alleg ed in the motion
to a djudicate, which was only nece ssary if appellant maintained that the alleg ations wer e not tr ue. Finally , appellant’ s surname is misspelled in the judg ment as “D avilla” r ather than “Da vila.” This Court has au t h o rity to modify incorre ct judgme nts when the nece ssary information is available 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). Acc ording ly , we modify the judgme nt adjudicating g uilt to ref lect that the “Of fense for which Def

endant Convicted” is “ Ag g ravated Sex ual Assault of a Child,” the “Statute for Offe nse” is “22.021(a )(1) (B )(i), (2)( B) Penal Code,” appellant’ s “Plea to Motion to Adjudicate” was “ Not True,” and appe llant’s surname is “ Davila.”

CONCLUSION We modify the trial court’s judgme nt adjudicating g uilt as noted above to corr ect the cler ical er rors a nd aff irm the judg ment as modified.

3__________________________________________ Cindy Olson Bour land, J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Goodwin, and B ourland Modified and, a s Modified, Aff irmed Filed: August 20, 2015 Do Not Publish

4