Opinion
NO. 12-11-00203-CR
04-26-2012
TREAVOR REGINALD PUGH, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
APPEAL FROM THE 114TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Treavor Reginald Pugh appeals his conviction of evading arrest. In his sole issue, Appellant argues that the trial court's judgment should be reformed to accurately reflect the proceedings below. We modify the judgment and affirm as modified.
BACKGROUND
Appellant was charged by indictment with evading arrest, a state jail felony as alleged.Appellant pleaded guilty to the charged offense and received three years of deferred adjudication community supervision. The State filed an application to proceed to final adjudication of Appellant's guilt for violating the conditions of his community supervision on April 5, 2011. Appellant entered pleas of "true" to each of the alleged grounds, but the trial court denied the State's application and continued Appellant's community supervision.
On June 23, 2011, the State filed a second application to proceed to final adjudication. In the first paragraph, the application alleged that Appellant was the person subject to community supervision. The second paragraph contained an allegation that Appellant smoked marijuana on June 17, 2011. Similarly, the third paragraph contained an allegation that Appellant smoked marijuana on May 23, 2011. Appellant pleaded "true" to paragraphs one and three, but pleaded "not true" to paragraph two.
After a hearing, the trial court found the allegations in all three paragraphs to be true, adjudicated Appellant's guilt and found him "guilty" of the charged offense, revoked his community supervision, and sentenced him to twelve months of confinement in a state jail facility. This appeal followed.
JUDGMENT
In his sole issue, Appellant asks that we reform the trial court's judgment to accurately reflect the proceedings at trial. He points out that the written judgment incorrectly reflects that she pleaded "true" to paragraph two and "not true" to paragraph three. The State has joined Appellant in this request.
As a general rule, when an oral pronouncement of sentence and a written judgment differ, the oral pronouncement controls. Ex parte Madding, 70 S.W.3d 131, 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Further, when it has the necessary information before it, an appellate court may correct a trial court's written judgment to reflect its oral pronouncement. Thompson v. State, 108 S.W.3d 287, 290 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); Ingram v. State, 261 S.W.3d 749, 754 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2008, no pet.). The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure expressly authorize us to modify the judgment of the trial court. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2.
The record before us clearly demonstrates that Appellant pleaded "true" to paragraphs one and three, but pleaded "not true" to paragraph two. The written judgment incorrectly reflects that Appellant pleaded "true" to paragraph two and "not true" to paragraph three. We conclude that we have the necessary information to correct the error in the trial court's judgment and can modify the judgment so that it speaks the truth. See id Therefore, we sustain Appellant's sole issue.
DISPOSITION
Having sustained Appellant's sole issue, we modify the trial court's judgment to reflect that Appellant pleaded "true" to paragraphs one and three, but pleaded "not true" to paragraph two in the State's application to proceed to final adjudication. As modified, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
SAM GRIFFITH
Justice
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.04(a), (b)(1) (West Supp. 2011).