From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Clark v. State

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
Feb 3, 2012
No. 05-11-00393-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 3, 2012)

Opinion

No. 05-11-00393-CR No. 05-11-00394-CR No. 05-11-00395-CR

02-03-2012

TERRANCE TAVARISH CLARK, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


AFFIRM; Opinion Filed February 3, 2012.

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F10-31385-R, F10-31386-R, F10-34915-R

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang, Murphy, and Myers

Opinion By Justice Myers

Terrance Tavarish Clark appeals two forgery of a check convictions and a conviction for assault by impeding breathing/circulation-family violence. In four points of error, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion when it found the allegations in the State's motions to adjudicate guilt true and the written judgments should be modified. We affirm the trial court's judgments. The background of these cases 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 cases is well settled. Appellant waived a jury, pleaded guilty to two forgery of a check offenses and one assault by impeding breathing/circulation-family violence offense, and pleaded true to one enhancement paragraph contained in each indictment. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 22.01(a)(1), 32.21(b) (West 2011). Pursuant to plea agreements, the trial court deferred adjudicating guilt, placed appellant on four years' community supervision, and assessed fines of $1,500, $2,500, and $2,000, respectively. The State later moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging appellant violated five conditions of community supervision, including (1) failing to report, (2) failing to notify probation officer of changes in home or employment address, (3) failing to work faithfully at suitable employment, (4) traveling outside this area without permission from the community supervision officer, and (5) failed to “participate in the CP/HRC program.” Appellant pleaded true to all of the allegations in a hearing on the motions. The trial court found the allegations true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at three years' imprisonment in each case.

In his first point of error, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion when it found the allegations in the State's motions to adjudicate guilt true. Appellant asserts the trial court should have taken into consideration his explanation of why he did not report and why he moved to Tarrant County, and should have continued him on community supervision. The State responds the trial court neither erred nor abused its discretion in revoking appellant's community supervision.

Appellant pleaded true to the allegations contained in the motions to adjudicate. A plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support revocation of community supervision. See Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). While appellant testified he could not report his address due to a house fire, he admitted he failed to report and “hitched a ride to Tarrant County” to have a place to live. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant's community supervision and adjudicating his guilt. We overrule appellant's first point of error.

In his second, third, and fourth points of error, appellant contends the judgments adjudicating guilt should be modified to show there was no plea bargain agreement. The State agrees the judgment in cause no. 05-11-00393-CR should be modified as requested by appellant, but the judgments in the remaining cases were corrected by nunc pro tunc judgments filed in the trial court.

The records show the trial court adjudicated appellant's guilt and imposed the punishment on March 4, 2011. On August 12, 2011, the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc judgment in each case to show the “terms of plea bargain” were “open.” Thus, there is no longer a need to modify the judgments. We overrule appellant's second, third, and fourth points of error.

We affirm the trial court's judgments adjudicating guilt.

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47

110393F.U05


Summaries of

Clark v. State

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
Feb 3, 2012
No. 05-11-00393-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 3, 2012)
Case details for

Clark v. State

Case Details

Full title:TERRANCE TAVARISH CLARK, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

Date published: Feb 3, 2012

Citations

No. 05-11-00393-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 3, 2012)