Nos. 05-09-00839-CR, 05-09-00840-CR, 05-09-00841-CR, 05-09-00842-CR, 05-09-00843-CR, 05-09-00844-CR, 05-09-00845-CR, 05-09-00846-CR
Opinion issued March 11, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47
On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F08-73586-TQ, F07-73725-PQ, F07-84437-PQ, F07-84436-PQ, F08-44774-LQ, F08-56434-LQ, F08-63670-PQ, F08-72339-LQ.
Before Justices MORRIS, FITZGERALD, and FRANCIS.
Opinion By Justice FITZGERALD.
DeQuindrick Jamal Nelson appeals from his convictions for seven burglary of a building offenses and one escape offense. In two points of error, appellant contends the trial court erred by sentencing him without first finding him guilty, and the written judgments should be modified. We affirm the trial court's judgment as modified.
Both the appellant's and the State's briefs list the appellate cause numbers as 05-09-00840-CR through 05-09-00847-CR. It is clear, however, that appellant intended to address cause no. 05-09-00839-CR because he included the trial court cause number for that case throughout the brief. Moreover, it is obvious neither appellant nor the State intended to include cause number 05-09-00847-CR. We believe the briefs simply contain a clerical error in reciting the appellate cause numbers.
Background
In cause nos. 05-09-00840-CR, 05-09-00841-CR, 05-09-00842-CR, 05-09-00843-CR, 05-09-00844-CR, and 05-09-00846-CR, appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to burglary of a building. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a) (Vernon 2003). The trial court deferred adjudicating guilt and placed appellant on five years' community supervision in each case. The State later moved to adjudicate guilt in each case, alleging appellant violated the terms of his community supervision by committing two new offenses: burglary of a building and escape. Appellant pleaded true to the allegations in a hearing on the motions. The trial court found the allegations true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at two years' confinement in a state jail facility in each case. In cause nos. 05-09-00839-CR and 05-09-00845-CR, appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to burglary of a building and escape, respectively. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 30.02(a), 38.06(a) (Vernon 2003). After finding appellant guilty, the trial court assessed punishment at two years' confinement in a state jail facility for the burglary conviction and ten years' imprisonment for the escape conviction. Trial Court Error
In his first point of error, appellant contends the trial court erred when it sentenced him without first orally adjudicating his guilt in six cases. Appellant asserts the trial judge granted the State's motions to adjudicate and then imposed the sentences without finding appellant guilty. The State responds that the record shows the trial court found appellant guilty by adjudicating his guilt and sentencing him after accepting his pleas and hearing evidence. The record does not support appellant's claims. The trial court's written judgments affirmatively state that the trial court found appellant guilty of the offense in each case. See Villela v. State, 564 S.W.2d 750 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (absence of an express oral pronouncement by trial judge that he found defendant guilty does not render the written judgment void). Moreover, there is no express oral finding of guilt required after a court adjudicates guilt. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2009). Accordingly, we overrule appellant's first point of error. Modify Judgments
In his second point of error, appellant contends the trial court's written judgment in each case should be modified to reflect the correct name of the attorney for the State. The State agrees that the judgments should be modified to correct the name of the attorney representing the State during the proceedings. The record shows that during the hearing on the motion to adjudicate and the two new offenses, the State was represented by Justin L. McCants. The written judgment in each case, however, recites the State was represented by Eric Cummings. Thus, the written judgments are incorrect. We sustain appellant's second point of error. We modify the trial court's judgment in each case to show Justin L. McCants was the attorney for the State. 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 in each case.