Vielma, Antonio v. State ( 2012 )

AFFIRM as modified; Opinion issued December 21, 2012
In The
(!tntrt nf \ppcat
fiftI! Ditrirt uf rxa at
No. 05-1 1-00900-CR
ANTONIO VIELMA, Appellant
V.
TilE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 283rd .Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F09-72461-T
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Bridges and Myers
Opinion By Chief Justice Wright
Antonio 7
i\
elma appeals from the adjudication of his guilt for indecency with a child by
contact. In four points of error, appellant contends the judgment adjudicating guilt should be
modified to show: (1) the correct statute for the oflnse: (2) he pleaded not true to the motion to
adjudicate (3) there was no plea bargain agreement: and (4) the condition of community supervision
he was found to have violated. We modify the trial court’s judgment and affirm as modified. The
background of the case and the evidence admitted at trial are well known to the parties. and we
therefore limit recitation of the facts. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule
of Appellate Procedure 47.4 because the law to be applied in the case is well settled.
Appellant was indicted for continuous sexual abuse of a child. The trial court granted the
Stat&s motion 10 reduce the olknse charged to indecency with a child by contact. Appellant pleaded
guilty to indecency with a child. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudicating
guilt, placed appellant on ten years’ community supervision, and assessed a $3,000 fine. The State
later moved to adjudicate guilt alleging appellant violated condition (b) by fhiling to report to his
supervision officer; condition (j) by failing to pay probation fees: condition (1) by failing to perform
community service hours: condition (n) by failing to pay urinalysis fees; condition (t) by failing to
submit to a DNA test; and condition (x) by failing to obtain a sex offender evaluation. During a
hearing on the motion, appellant pleaded not true to the allegations, and the State abandoned
allegations (j) and (n). The trial court found that appellant violated condition (b) of community
supervision, adjudicated appellant guilty. and assessed punishment at twenty years’ imprisonment.
Although appellant was convicted of the offense of indecency with a child by contact, as
defined in section 21.11 of the Texas Penal Code, the judgment recites the statute for the offense
as section 21.02. continuous sexual abuse of a child. The judgment also reflects appellant pleaded
true to the motion to adjudicate. the plea terms were “open.” and the trial court found appellant
violated the conditions ofcommunity supervision as set out in the “attached motion to adjudicate.’
which lists the original six violations. Thus, the judgment is incorrect. We sustain each of
appellant’s issues.
We modify the trial court’s judgment as follows: (I) the statute for the offense is section
21.11 (aX I) ofthe Texas Penal Code; (2) the plea to the motion to adjudicate is not true; (3)the terms
ofthe plea bargain are open; and (4) while on community supervision, appellant violated condition
(b) of community supervision by failing to report to his supervision officer. See Thx. R. App. P.
43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26. 27—28 rex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State. 813
S.W.2d 526.529—30 (Ta. App.—Dallas 1991. pet. ref’d).
—2—
As modified, we aflirm the trial courts judgment.
/
/
— /
C ROI YN ‘v\’RICdi I
(11111 J1iS1lCk
I)o Not Publish
1ix. R. App. P.47
11 0900F. U05
tutrt nf ApPcab
iftI! 1i,trirt uf cxa at 1attai
JUDGMENT
AN IONI() VIELMA. Appellant Appeal 0om the 283rd Judicial [)istrict
Court ol Dal lax County. Texas. (Er.Ct.No.
No. 05—11 —00900—CR V. F09—7246 1 —T).
Opinion delivered by ChieF Justice Wright.
TI IL STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Bridges and Myers participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt is
NiO1)IFIED as follows:
The section entitled “Statute for Ofhmse’ is modilied to show “21 .1 1 (a)( I) Penal Code.”
The section entitled “Plea to Motion to Adjudicate” is modi lied to show “Not True.”
The section entitled “Terms of Plea Bargain” is modified to show “None.”
The section entitled “(5) While on community supervision Defendant violated the termS”
is modified to show “(5) While on community supervision. Defendant violated condition (b) of
community supervision as set out in the State’s original motion to adjudicate guilt.”
As modified, we AFFiRM the trial courts judgment.
Judgment entered December 21. 2012.
C AROLYN WR,LGHT
CI ljJF JUSTIC f