Percy Edward Walters pled guilty in Cause No. 90156 to burglary of a building. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 30.02 (Vernon 2003). The plea agreement called for the sentence in Cause No. 90156 to run concurrently with that in Cause No. 90157. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court pronounced that the sentence in Cause No. 90156 would run consecutively with the sentences in Cause Nos. 89235 and 89344, and that the sentences in Cause Nos. 90156 and 90157 would run concurrently. Yet the written judgment recites "Terms of Plea Agreement" as follows: "This sentence will run concurrently with cause(s) 89235, 89344, and consecutively with cause(s) 90157." The judgment also states, "This sentence shall run consecutive to the case specified below" but no case is specified.

Appellant asks that the judgment be reformed to correctly reflect the trial court's sentence in open court. The State concedes there is a clerical error in the judgment and the judgment should be reformed. An appellate court may correct and reform a trial court judgment to make the judgment "congruent with the record." St. Julian v. State, 132 S.W.3d 512, 517 (Tex. App.--Houston [1^st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd); Nolan v. State, 39 S.W.3d 697, 698 (Tex. App.--Houston [1^st Dist. 2001, no pet). Accordingly, we reform the judgment to reflect that the sentences in Cause Nos. 90156 and 90157 shall run concurrently, and the sentence in Cause No. 90156 shall run consecutively with Cause Nos. 89344 and 89235. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b). Appellant's issue is sustained. The judgment is affirmed as reformed.

AFFIRMED AS REFORMED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on November 1, 2004

Opinion Delivered November 10, 2004

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Burgess, and Gaultney, JJ.