Opinion
No. 05-11-00033-CR
Opinion Filed October 28, 2011. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F09-58510-I.
Before Justices MOSELEY, LANG, and MYERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Dylan Jerron Ransom appeals from the revocation of his community supervision. In two points of error, appellant contends the trial court's judgment placing him on community supervision and the judgment revoking community supervision should be modified. We affirm the judgment revoking community supervision as modified. The background of the case and the evidence adduced at trial are well known to the parties, and therefore we 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 waived a jury and pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a) (West 2011). After finding appellant guilty, the trial court assessed punishment at ten years' imprisonment, then suspended imposition of the sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for ten years. The State later moved to revoke community supervision, alleging appellant violated several conditions, including having a positive urinalysis for marijuana on three occasions and failing to pay fees. In a hearing on the motion, appellant pleaded true to the allegations. The trial court found the allegations true, revoked appellant's community supervision, and modified the original sentence by assessing four years' imprisonment. In his first point of error, appellant contends the judgment placing him on community supervision should be modified to reflect the trial court's original sentence that suspended the ten-year prison term by assessing ten years' community supervision. In his second point of error, appellant contends the judgment revoking community supervision should be modified to recite the correct original punishment assessed. The State responds that the trial court's judgments should be modified in the manner requested by appellant. Once the trial court revoked appellant's community supervision, the original judgment suspending the ten-year sentence and placing him on community supervision was no longer in effect. See Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497, 502 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); McCoy v. State, 81 S.W.3d 917, 919 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2002, pet. ref'd). A trial court's judgment revoking community supervision expressly sets aside the underlying order placing appellant on community supervision. See McCoy, 81 S.W.3d at 919. Therefore, there is no longer an order in effect requiring modification. We overrule appellant's first point of error. The record shows the trial court originally imposed a ten-year sentence and probated that sentence for a period of ten years. The judgment revoking community supervision recites the original sentence as "10 years Institutional Division, TDCJ Probated 2 years Fine: N/A." Thus, the judgment revoking community supervision is incorrect. We sustain appellant's second point of error. We modify the judgment revoking community supervision to show the original punishment assessed was ten years imprisonment, probated ten years. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529-30 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd). As modified, we affirm the trial court's judgment revoking community supervision.