Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-19-00360-CR

Bert VILLA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR1598

Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 11, 2020

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

Bert Villa appeals the trial court’s judgments revoking his community supervision in the 

underlying cause. The sole issue presented on appeal is whether this court should modify the 

judgments to correct an error evident from both the record and an internal inconsistency in the 

judgments. The State concedes error. We sustain the issue and affirm the judgments as modified.
04-19-00360-CR

- 2 -

BACKGROUND

In 2015, Villa was sentenced to eight years imprisonment for two counts of violating a 

protective order, with the sentences to run concurrently. Villa’s sentences were suspended, and he 

was placed on community supervision. Separate judgments were entered on each count.

On May 20, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on the State’s motion to revoke Villa’s 

community supervision. At the hearing, Villa pled true to violating one of the conditions of his 

community supervision. The trial court found the allegation to be true and granted the motion to 

revoke. The trial court then stated on the record that it was sentencing Villa “to a term of seven 

years TDC, receiving credit for time served.”

The judgments revoking Villa’s community supervision are internally inconsistent. On the 

first page of the judgments, the judgments reflect the term of Villa’s punishment to be seven years 

imprisonment and indicate the original judgment/sentence was reformed. The second page of the 

judgments contains boxes where the trial court can select either of the following options:

□ The Court ORDERS Defendant punished in accordance with the judgment 

and sentence originally entered in this cause.

□ Finding it to be in the interest of justice, the Court ORDERS Defendant 

punished in accordance with the reformed judgment and sentence indicated above.

The trial court marked the first option, which is inconsistent with the first page of the judgments

and the trial court’s verbal pronouncement of the sentences imposed.

DISCUSSION

An appellate court has the authority to reform or modify a judgment “to make the record 

speak the truth when the matter has been called to its attention by any source.” French v. State, 

830 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); see also Johnson v. State, 550 S.W.3d 247, 255 

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet. ref’d) (same). Because the trial court reformed 

Villa’s original sentences to seven years imprisonment, we modify the trial court’s judgments to 
04-19-00360-CR

- 3 -

“make the record speak the truth” and affirm the judgments as modified. French, 830 S.W.2d 609; 

see also TEX.R. APP. P. 43.2(b) (authorizing courts of appeals to “modify the trial court’s judgment 

and affirm it as modified”).

CONCLUSION

The trial court’s judgments are modified to delete the mark in the box on the second page 

of the judgments selecting the following option: “The Court ORDERS Defendant punished in 

accordance with the judgment and sentence originally entered in this cause.” The judgments are 

further modified by marking the box on the second page of the judgments selecting the following 

option: “Finding it to be in the interest of justice, the Court ORDERS Defendant punished in 

accordance with the reformed judgment and sentence indicated above.” The judgments are 

affirmed as modified.

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH