Opinion
No. 05-09-01289-CR
May 24, 2011. DO NOT PUBLISH. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F00-31476-NH.
OPINION
The trial court found Cecilia Ann Mata violated the terms and conditions of her community supervision, adjudicated her guilty of possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine in an amount over 400 grams, and assessed a fifteen-year sentence. In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in proceeding to an adjudication of guilt in the absence of a written motion to adjudicate. After appellant filed her appellate brief, the Dallas County District Clerk filed a supplemental record that contained an "Amended-Amended Motion to Proceed with an Adjudication of Guilt," filed in the trial court on September 30, 2009 and received by appellant, as confirmed by her signature, on October 1, 2009. The record shows the trial court held a hearing on the State's motion on October 7, 2009. At that hearing, appellant entered her plea of true to the allegations contained in the State's motion, and the record contains a signed judicial confession. Additionally, appellant testified that she quit reporting because she got a "dirty UA" and her probation officer told her a warrant had issued for her arrest. The motion to adjudicate sets forth the basis for the proceedings, and appellant's plea of true is sufficient evidence to support the adjudication. See Pitts v. State, 916 S.W.2d 507, 509 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Flournoy v. State, 589 S.W.2d 705, 707-10 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1999). We resolve appellant's issue against her. The State and appellant agree that this Court should modify the judgment adjudicating guilt to reflect the correct statute. We have reviewed the judgment and it incorrectly recites that appellant violated section 481.115 of the Health and Safety Code, possession of a controlled substance, rather than section 481.112, possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. See Tex. Health Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.112(a), 481.115(a) (West Supp. 2010). We modify the judgment to show the statute violated as "section 481.112, Texas Health and Safety Code." 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). The record clearly shows that the parties proceeded on the allegations contained in the State's "Amended-Amended Motion to Adjudicate Guilt." The trial court's judgment adjudicating guilt, however, incorrectly recites that appellant violated the conditions of community supervision "as set out in the State's original motion to adjudicate." Thus, the judgment is incorrect. We further modify the judgment to show appellant violated the terms and conditions of community supervision as set forth in the State's "Amended-Amended Motion to Adjudicate guilt. Id. As modified, we affirm the trial court's judgment.