Elizabeth Silva Mendoza v. State ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                  ACCEPTED
    06-14-00225-CR
    SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS
    TEXARKANA, TEXAS
    5/21/2015 3:28:54 PM
    DEBBIE AUTREY
    CLERK
    The State Requests Oral Argument
    if Appellant Requests Oral Argument.
    FILED IN
    NOS. 06-14-00225-CR, 06-14-00226-CR, 6th COURT OF APPEALS
    & 06-14-00227-CR              TEXARKANA, TEXAS
    5/21/2015 3:28:54 PM
    DEBBIE AUTREY
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS                          Clerk
    FOR THE SIXTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    AT TEXARKANA
    ________________________
    ELIZABETH MENDOZA,
    Appellant
    vs.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,
    Appellee
    ________________________
    On appeal from the Criminal District Court. No. 6
    of Dallas County, Texas
    Cause Nos. F12-61870-X, F13-34344-X, & F13-40734-X
    ________________________
    STATE’S BRIEF
    ________________________
    Counsel of Record:
    SUSAN HAWK                                   LARISSA T. ROEDER
    Criminal District Attorney                   Assistant District Attorney
    Dallas County, Texas                         State Bar No. 24010357
    133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB-19
    Dallas, Texas 75207-4399
    (214) 653-3627 (Phone)
    (214) 653-3643 (Fax)
    ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS
    TABLE OF CONTENTS
    TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... i
    INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................... ii
    STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................................................... 1
    STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................. 3
    SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................................................................................... 3
    ARGUMENT....................................................................................................................... 3
    Response to Appellant’s Sole Issue on Appeal ................................................................ 3
    THE TRIAL COURT’S WRITTEN JUDGMENTS SHOULD BE
    REFORMED TO CORRECTLY REFLECT THAT APPELLANT’S
    PLEAS OF TRUE WERE ENTERED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF
    PLEA BARGAIN AGREEMENTS. ........................................................................ 3
    PRAYER ............................................................................................................................. 5
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND WORD-COUNT COMPLIANCE ........................... 5
    INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
    Cases
    Abron v. State,
    
    997 S.W.2d 281
    (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, pet. ref’d) ................................................... 4
    Asberry v. State,
    
    813 S.W.2d 526
    (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d) ................................................... 4
    Bigley v. State,
    
    865 S.W.2d 26
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) .......................................................................... 4
    Nolan v. State,
    
    39 S.W.3d 697
    (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.) ..................................... 4
    ii
    TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
    The State of Texas submits this brief in response to the brief of appellant,
    Elizabeth Mendoza.
    STATEMENT OF THE CASE
    A grand jury issued an indictment in cause number F12-61870-X, charging
    appellant with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. (CR.1:13).1 On May 2,
    2013, appellant pleaded guilty and was placed on two (2) years’ deferred
    adjudication community supervision. (CR.1:35-36, 40-41). The State thereafter
    filed a motion to proceed to an adjudication of guilt. (CR.1:53-54). On November
    13, 2014, appellant entered a non-negotiated plea of true to the allegations in the
    State’s motion.2 (CR.1:60). The trial court entered judgment adjudicating guilt
    and assessed punishment at six (6) years’ imprisonment. (CR.1:56).
    A grand jury issued an indictment in cause number F13-34344-X, charging
    appellant with possession of a controlled substance less than one gram. (CR.2:7).
    On July 2, 2014, appellant pleaded guilty to a lesser-included class A misdemeanor
    offense and, in accordance with a negotiated plea agreement, the trial court placed
    1
    C.R.1 refers to the clerk’s record in cause number F12-61870-X (06-14-00225-CR);
    CR.2 refers to the clerk’s record in cause number F13-34344-X (06-14-00226-CR); and
    CR.3 refers to the clerk’s record in cause number F13-40734-X (06-14-00227-CR).
    2
    The clerk’s records on appeal do not contain the second half of any of appellant’s three
    plea agreements. The State has brought the matter to the attention of the clerk of the
    court, and has asked the District Clerk’s Office to supplement the clerk’s records on
    appeal with complete copies of appellant’s November 13, 2014, plea agreement.
    1
    appellant on ten (10) months’ deferred adjudication community supervision.
    (CR.2:19-22). The State thereafter filed a motion to proceed to an adjudication of
    guilt. (CR.2:36-37). On November 13, 2014, appellant entered a non-negotiated
    plea of true to the allegations in the State’s motion. (CR.2:44). The trial court
    entered judgment adjudicating guilt and assessed punishment at one (1) year
    confinement in the county jail. (CR.2:38-39).
    A grand jury issued an indictment in cause number F13-40734-X, charging
    appellant with unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. (CR.3:11). On May 2, 2013,
    appellant pleaded guilty and on May 22, 2013, the trial court placed appellant on
    two (2) years’ deferred adjudication community supervision. (CR.3:25, 34-36).
    The State thereafter filed a motion to proceed to an adjudication of guilt.
    (CR.3:47-48). On November 13, 2014, appellant entered a non-negotiated plea of
    true to the allegations in the State’s motion. (CR.3:53). The trial court entered
    judgment adjudicating guilt and assessed punishment at ten (10) months in the
    state jail. (CR.3:50-51).
    2
    STATEMENT OF FACTS
    The State filed motions to revoke appellant’s deferred adjudication
    community supervision in three separate cases. Appellant entered a plea of true in
    each case without the benefit of a plea bargain agreement.          The trial court
    adjudicated guilt and sentenced appellant to a term of confinement in each of the
    three cases. All three of the court’s written judgments incorrectly reflect that the
    sentences imposed were based on negotiated plea agreements.
    SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
    This Court should reform the written judgment in each of appellant’s cases
    to correctly reflect that appellant entered a plea of true in each case without the
    benefit of a plea bargain agreement.
    ARGUMENT
    Response to Appellant’s Sole Issue on Appeal
    THE TRIAL COURT’S WRITTEN JUDGMENTS SHOULD BE
    REFORMED TO CORRECTLY REFLECT THAT APPELLANT’S
    PLEAS OF TRUE WERE ENTERED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT
    OF PLEA BARGAIN AGREEMENTS.
    The State agrees that the judgment in all three of appellant’s convictions
    should be reformed to correctly reflect the appellant entered her pleas of true
    without the benefit of a plea agreement.
    3
    Applicable Law
    Where the record contains the necessary information to do so, the court on
    appeal has the authority to modify incorrect judgments. Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b);
    Bigley v. State, 
    865 S.W.2d 26
    , 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Abron v. State, 
    997 S.W.2d 281
    , 282 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, pet. ref’d). “An appellate court has the
    power to correct and reform a trial court judgment ‘to make the record speak the
    truth when it has the necessary data and information to do so, or make any
    appropriate order as the law and nature of the case may require.’” Nolan v. State,
    
    39 S.W.3d 697
    , 698 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (quoting
    Asberry v. State, 
    813 S.W.2d 526
    , 529 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d)).
    Application of Law to the Facts
    The record in each of appellant’s cases reflect that appellant entered an
    “open plea” of true.     The judgments, however, each incorrectly show a plea
    agreement to a term of confinement that matches the punishments actually imposed
    by the trial court. Because this Court has the information to do so, the State
    respectfully joins in appellant’s request that the judgment in each of her three cases
    should be modified to show appellant entered an “open plea” to the allegations in
    the State’s motions to proceed with an adjudication of guilt.
    4
    PRAYER
    The State prays this Honorable Court will reform the judgments in cause
    numbers F12-61870-X (06-14-00225-CR), F13-34344-X (06-14-00226-CR); and
    F13-40734-X (06-14-00227-CR), and affirm as modified.
    Respectfully submitted,
    SUSAN HAWK                                  LARISSA T. ROEDER
    Criminal District Attorney                  Assistant District Attorney
    State Bar No. 00791886                      State Bar No. 24010357
    Dallas County, Texas                        133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB-19
    Dallas, Texas 75207-4399
    (214) 653-3627 (phone)
    (214) 653-3643 (fax)
    larissa.roeder@dallascounty.org
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND WORD-COUNT COMPLIANCE
    A copy of this brief has been served on Bruce Anton, attorney for appellant,
    2311 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 250, Dallas, Texas 75201, via electronic mail at
    ba@sualaw.com on May 21, 2015. I further certify that this document contains
    1,069 words, inclusive of all contents.
    Larissa T. Roeder
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-14-00227-CR

Filed Date: 5/21/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/29/2016