Elizabeth Silva Mendoza v. State ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                ACCEPTED
    06-14-00225-CR
    SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS
    TEXARKANA, TEXAS
    4/13/2015 4:07:49 PM
    DEBBIE AUTREY
    CLERK
    CAUSE NO. 06-14-00225-CR
    CAUSE NO. 06-14-00226-CR
    CAUSE NO. 06-14-00227-CR          FILED IN
    6th COURT OF APPEALS
    TEXARKANA, TEXAS
    THE COURT OF APPEALS      4/13/2015 4:07:49 PM
    FOR   THE SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEBBIE AUTREY
    AT TEXARKANA                   Clerk
    _______________________________________________________________
    ELIZABETH MENDOZA
    APPELLANT,
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,
    APPELLEE.
    ________________________________________________________________
    CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT #6
    DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
    NO. F12-61870-X; F13-34344-X; F13-40734-X
    __________________________________________________________________
    APPELLANT’S BRIEF
    __________________________________________________________________
    BRUCE ANTON
    STATE BAR NO. 01274700
    SORRELS, UDASHEN & ANTON
    2311 Cedar Springs Road
    Suite 250
    Dallas, Texas 75201
    214/468-8100
    214/468-8104 - fax
    ba@sualaw.com
    Attorney for Appellant
    TABLE OF CONTENTS
    TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................... ii
    IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ....................................................... iii
    INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................. iv-vi
    PROCEDURAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE
    (CHRONOLOGY) ................................................................................................ vii
    STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................................... 1
    POINT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE .................................................................... 2
    Relevant Facts ................................................................................................ 2
    Reformation of Judgment ............................................................................. 2
    PRAYER ................................................................................................................... 2
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .............................................................................. 3
    ii
    IDENTITIES OF PARTIES
    APPELLANT                               Elizabeth Mendoza
    DEFENSE COUNSEL AT TRIAL                Winston Shepherd
    Roger Lennox
    APPELLANT’S ATTORNEY ON APPEAL Bruce Anton
    Sorrels, Udashen & Anton
    2311 Cedar Springs Rd #250
    Dallas, Texas 75201
    STATE’S ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL              Josh Healy
    Brandi Mitchell
    Jody Warner
    Kenna Miller
    Caitlin Paver
    Assistant District Attorney
    133 N. Riverside Drive
    Dallas, Texas 75207
    STATE’S ATTORNEY ON APPEAL              not yet designated
    JUDGE                                   Honorable Anthony Randall
    Magistrate Judge
    Honorable Dorothy Shead
    Magistrate Judge
    Honorable Jeanine Howard
    Criminal District Court #6
    Dallas County, Texas
    iii
    INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
    CASES                                                                                                         PAGE
    Asberry v. State, 
    813 S.W.2d 526
    , 529 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd)………2
    Bigley v. State, 
    865 S.W.2d 26
    , 27–28 (Tex.Crim.App.1993)……………………2
    Christian v. State _S.W.3d_, 
    2013 WL 5969565
    (Tex.App.-Dallas,2013)……….2
    Ramirez v. State, 
    336 S.W.3d 846
    , 852 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2011, pet. ref'd)……2
    CODES AND RULES
    Tex.R.App. P. 43.2(b) ................................................................................................ 6
    iv
    PROCEDURAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE
    (CASE CHRONOLOGY)
    F12-61870-X
    CHARGE                        Aggravated assault w/deadly weapon
    Offense date: October 27, 2012
    Arrest date: October 27, 2012
    Indictment: November 26, 2012
    (CR.13)
    PLEA                          Guilty (RR2.8)
    May 2, 2013
    PLEA BARGAIN                  2 years deferred probation (CR.35)
    JURY WAIVED                   (CR.35-36)
    JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE         May 22, 2013(CR.40-41)
    MOTION TO ADJUDICATE          Filed September 10, 2014 (CR.47-
    48,53-53)
    Heard November 13, 2014
    PLEA                          True (CR.60-61,RR5.8)
    VERDICT ON PUNISHMENT         6 years TDC (RR5.19)
    JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE         November 13,2014 (CR.56-57)
    MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL          Filed November 18, 2014 (CR.63)
    NOTICE OF APPEAL              November 18, 2014 (CR.62)
    v
    PROCEDURAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE
    (CASE CHRONOLOGY)
    F13-34344-X
    CHARGE                         Possession of controlled substance
    Less than 1 gram
    Offense date: March 18, 2014
    Arrest date: April 16, 2014
    Indictment: May 2, 2014(CR.7)
    MOTION TO REDUCE CHARGE
    TO ATTEMPTED POSSESSION        July 2, 2014(CR.27)
    PLEA                           Guilty (CR.19)
    July 2, 2014
    PLEA BARGAIN                   10 months deferred probation (CR.19)
    JURY WAIVED                    July 2, 2104 (CR.19)
    JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE          July 2, 2014(CR.21-22)
    MOTION TO ADJUDICATE           Filed September 10, 2014(CR.36)
    Heard November 13, 2014
    PLEA                           True (CR. 44,RR5.8)
    VERDICT ON PUNISHMENT          1 year county jail(RR5.19)
    JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE          November 13,2014 (CR.38-39)
    MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL           Filed November 18, 2014 (CR.46)
    NOTICE OF APPEAL               November 18, 2014 (CR.47)
    vi
    PROCEDURAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE
    (CASE CHRONOLOGY)
    F13-40734-X
    CHARGE                          Unauthorized use of a motor vehicle
    Offense date: April 10, 2012
    Arrest date: April 10, 2012
    Indictment: waived (CR.11)
    PLEA                            Guilty
    May 2, 2013(RR2.8)
    PLEA BARGAIN                    2 years deferred probation (CR.25)
    JURY WAIVED                     (CR.25)
    JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE           May 22, 2013 (CR.34-35)
    MOTION TO ADJUDICATE            Filed September 10, 2014(CR.40-
    41,47-48)
    Heard November 13, 2014
    PLEA                            True (RR5.8)
    VERDICT ON PUNISHMENT           10 months State jail (RR5.20)
    JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE           November 13,2014 (CR.50-51)
    MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL            Filed November 18, 2014(CR.55)
    NOTICE OF APPEAL                November 18, 2014(CR.56)
    vii
    STATEMENT OF FACTS
    Elizabeth Mendoza, the appellant, was placed on probation for three separate
    offenses: aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, unauthorized use of a motor
    vehicle, and attempted possession of a controlled substance. Subsequently, the State
    moved to adjudicate her guilt on these offenses. Mendoza entered a plea of true to
    the violations in each offense and proceeded without benefit of a plea bargain.
    (RR5.8) After hearing testimony from Ms. Mendoza, the court revoked her probation
    and assessed the following punishments: in Cause No. F12-61870-X, 6 years
    confinement in TDC for the offense of aggravated assault; in Cause No. F13-40734-
    X 10 months confinement in State jail for the offense of unauthorized use of a motor
    vehicle; and in Cause No. F13-34344-X 10 months in the county jail for the offense
    of attempted possession of a controlled substance. (RR5.19-20) These appeals are
    taken therefrom.
    POINT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE
    THE JUDGMENTS AND SENTENCES IN EACH CAUSE INCORRECTLY
    STATE THAT APPELLANT ENTERED INTO A PLEA BARGAIN
    AGREEMENT.
    Relevant Facts
    Appellant Mendoza was charged in three causes: aggravated assault with a
    deadly weapon, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, and attempted possession of a
    controlled substance. Although Mendoza entered into plea agreements for probation
    1
    in each cause, when the State moved to adjudicate her guilt, she entered pleas of true
    without benefit of a plea bargain. Nonetheless, the judgments and sentences reflect
    that the sentences were based upon agreed pleas.
    Reformation of Judgment
    Appellate courts have the power to modify the judgment of the trial court to
    make the record speak the truth when the court has the necessary information to do
    so. Tex.R.App. P. 43.2(b). Ramirez v. State, 
    336 S.W.3d 846
    , 852 (Tex.App.-
    Amarillo 2011, pet. ref'd) (citing Bigley v. State, 
    865 S.W.2d 26
    , 27–28
    (Tex.Crim.App.1993)). Appellate courts have the power to reform whatever the trial
    court could have corrected by a judgment nunc pro tunc where the evidence
    necessary to correct the judgment appears in the record. Asberry v. State, 
    813 S.W.2d 526
    , 529 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd). The power to reform a judgment is “not
    dependent upon the request of any party, nor does it turn on the question of whether
    a party has or has not objected in the trial court.” 
    Id. at 529–30.
    This includes the
    power to correct an incorrect statement of the existence of a plea bargain. Compare
    Christian      v.      State       ___S.W.3d___,        
    2013 WL 5969565
    (Tex.App.-Dallas,2013).
    PRAYER
    WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays that this
    Court will reform the judgment in this case.
    2
    Respectfully Submitted,
    /s/ Bruce Anton
    BRUCE ANTON
    State Bar No. 01274700
    Sorrels Udashen & Anton
    2311 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 250
    Dallas, Texas 75201
    214/468-8100
    214/468-8104 facsimile
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    This is to certify that a true and correct copy of Appellant’s brief was served
    on District Attorney of Dallas County via email to dcdaappeals@dallascounty.org
    on the 13th day of April, 2015.
    /s/ Bruce Anton
    BRUCE ANTON
    CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
    Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(3), undersigned counsel certifies
    that this brief complies with:
    1. the type-volume limitation of TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(2)(B) because this
    brief contains 896 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by TEX. R. APP.
    P. 9.4(i)(1).
    2. the typeface requirements of TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(e) and the type style
    requirements of TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(e) because this brief has been prepared in a
    proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word 2011 in 14-point Times New
    Roman.
    /s/ Bruce Anton
    BRUCE ANTON
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-14-00227-CR

Filed Date: 4/13/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/29/2016