Court Opinion

ID: 9930549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 07:12:36.778535+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:20:06.274250
License: Public Domain

Affirmed as Reformed and Opinion Filed January 29, 2024

                                      In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                       Nos.
                                 05-22-01264-CR
                                 05-22-01265-CR
                                 05-22-01266-CR
                                 05-22-01267-CR
                                 05-22-01268-CR

                         KEITH GASTON, Appellant
                                   V.
                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

             On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court
                           Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F20-37243-V; F21-34003-V; F21-34645-V; F21-34004-
                           V; and F20-37245-V

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                Before Justices Pedersen, III, Garcia, and Kennedy
                         Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III
       Appellant brings one appellate issue, arguing the trial court’s judgments

should be modified to reflect that he entered plea-bargain agreements with the State.

We sustain appellant’s issue and affirm the trial court’s judgments as reformed.
                                  BACKGROUND

      The grand jury indicted appellant with five offenses: possession of

methamphetamine, possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine, possession

with intent to deliver phencyclidine, possession with intent to deliver cocaine, and

possession of cocaine. At a November 21, 2022 plea hearing, the trial court accepted

appellant’s plea of guilty in all five cases, reviewed exhibits, and heard testimony

and argument. The trial court sentenced appellant to confinement of eighteen months

for possession of cocaine, five years for possession of methamphetamine, and twelve

years each for manufacture with intent to deliver methamphetamine, phencyclidine,

and cocaine. The trial court ordered the sentences be served concurrently. The trial

court stated appellant had the right to appeal all his cases and signed certifications

of appellant’s right to appeal.

      The trial court’s judgments in appellant’s cases reflect appellant entered

“guilty” and “open” pleas.

                          JUDGMENT MODIFICATION

      Appellant argues, “Appellant contends the judgment should be reformed to

properly reflect that appellant pleaded guilty with a plea bargain agreement.” The

State concedes, “Appellant’s judgments should be reformed to indicate that

Appellant entered into a plea-bargain agreement with the State.”

                                         –2–
                                   Applicable Law

      This Court has power to modify an incorrect judgment to make the record

speak the truth when it has necessary information before it 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); Taylor v.

State, No. 05-20-00017-CR, 2022 WL 17335689, at *14 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov.

30, 2022, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Asberry v. State, 813

S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d) (en banc). This Court has

power to correct judgments to reflect that appellant entered into plea-bargain

agreements with the State. See Burton v. State, No. 05-18-00608-CR, 2019 WL

3543580, at *6–7 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 5, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not

designated for publication) (modifying “open plea” language in trial court’s

judgments to reflect terms of plea agreements).

      An “open plea” of guilty can imply absence of any bargaining between the

State and a defendant. See Harper v. State, 567 S.W.3d 450, 454 (Tex. App.—Fort

Worth 2019, no pet.). However, an open plea of guilty in some instances has been

defined as involving a plea where charge bargaining, but not sentence bargaining,

has occurred. See id. (citing Kassube v. State, No. 12-08-00364-CR, 2010 WL

697362, at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.—Tyler Feb. 26, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op., not

designated for publication)). A “charge bargain” guilty-plea agreement involves

questions of whether a defendant “will plead guilty to the offense that has been

alleged or to a lesser or related offenses, and of whether the prosecutor will dismiss,

                                         –3–
or refrain from bringing, other charges.’” See Thomas v. State, 516 S.W.3d 498, 502

(Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (explaining sentence bargains and charge bargains).

                                      Analysis

      We examine the entire record to determine whether we have necessary data

and information to modify judgments. See Mack v. State, No. 05-17-01270–CV,

2008 WL 2429317, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 17, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op., not

designated for publication). The record before us demonstrates appellant’s plea

agreements provide for concurrent sentencing. Moreover, in appellant’s plea

hearing, the trial court stated appellant had entered plea bargains. The trial court

stated the State had filed a motion to strike enhancement paragraphs from the

indictments, thus affecting punishment ranges. Appellant acknowledged the State’s

motion to strike was “by way of plea bargain.” The trial court confirmed the parties

did not agree to punishment ranges. The trial court stated, “So this is an open plea,

and, Mr. Gatson (sic), what that means is in all of these cases I have the full range

of punishment available to me.” The trial court confirmed appellant signed the “plea

bargain agreement[s].” Consistent with the plea agreements, the trial court held from

the bench that appellant would serve his sentences concurrently. The State argues

the record of the plea hearing reflects appellant entered into “charge-bargain plea

agreements” due to the State’s agreement to strike enhancement paragraphs. See

Thomas, 516 S.W.3d at 502. Moreover, the State argues the clerk’s records

demonstrate the parties agreed to concurrent sentences.

                                        –4–
      After reviewing the entire record, we conclude we have necessary data and

information to modify the judgments as appellant and the State request. See Mack,

2008 WL 2429317, at *2. We conclude appellant and the State entered into charge-

bargain plea agreements. See Thomas, 516 S.W.3d at 502.

      Although appellant seeks modification of the judgments, he additionally

requests that we reverse the judgments and remand the cases for new trial. He cites

no legal authority for his additional request. Rather, we follow well-settled law,

addressed above, and affirm the trial court’s judgments as reformed.

      We sustain appellant’s sole issue on appeal.

                                 CONCLUSION

      We modify the five trial court judgments now before us to delete the words

“OPEN PLEA” from each judgment and to substitute the words “PLEA-BARGAIN

AGREEMENT” in their place. We affirm the judgments as reformed.

                                          /Bill Pedersen, III/
221264f.u05                               BILL PEDERSEN, III
221265f.u05                               JUSTICE
221266f.u05
221267f.u05
221268f.u05
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

                                       –5–
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

KEITH GASTON, Appellant                      On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial
                                             District Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-22-01264-CR          V.               Trial Court Cause No. F20-37243-V.
                                             Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 Pedersen, III. Justices Garcia and
                                             Kennedy participating.

   Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
MODIFIED as follows:

       The words “OPEN PLEA” shall be deleted from the trial court’s judgment
and the words “PLEA-BARGAIN AGREEMENT” shall be substituted in their
place.

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 29th day of January, 2024.

                                       –6–
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

KEITH GASTON, Appellant                      On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial
                                             District Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-22-01265-CR          V.               Trial Court Cause No. F21-34003-V.
                                             Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 Pedersen, III. Justices Garcia and
                                             Kennedy participating.

   Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
MODIFIED as follows:

       The words “OPEN PLEA” shall be deleted from the trial court’s judgment
and the words “PLEA-BARGAIN AGREEMENT” shall be substituted in their
place.

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 29th day of January, 2024.

                                       –7–
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

KEITH GASTON, Appellant                      On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial
                                             District Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-22-01266-CR          V.               Trial Court Cause No. F21-34645-V.
                                             Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 Pedersen, III. Justices Garcia and
                                             Kennedy participating.

   Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
MODIFIED as follows:

       The words “OPEN PLEA” shall be deleted from the trial court’s judgment
and the words “PLEA-BARGAIN AGREEMENT” shall be substituted in their
place.

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 29th day of January, 2024.

                                       –8–
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

KEITH GASTON, Appellant                      On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial
                                             District Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-22-01267-CR          V.               Trial Court Cause No. F21-34004-V.
                                             Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 Pedersen, III. Justices Garcia and
                                             Kennedy participating.

   Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
MODIFIED as follows:

       The words “OPEN PLEA” shall be deleted from the trial court’s judgment
and the words “PLEA-BARGAIN AGREEMENT” shall be substituted in their
place.

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 29th day of January, 2024.

                                       –9–
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

KEITH GASTON, Appellant                      On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial
                                             District Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-22-01268-CR          V.               Trial Court Cause No. F20-37245-V.
                                             Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 Pedersen, III. Justices Garcia and
                                             Kennedy participating.

   Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
MODIFIED as follows:

       The words “OPEN PLEA” shall be deleted from the trial court’s judgment
and the words “PLEA-BARGAIN AGREEMENT” shall be substituted in their
place.

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 29th day of January, 2024

                                      –10–