Elizabeth Mendoza v. State

ACCEPTED 06-14-00225-CR

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS 4/13/2015 4:07:49 PM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK CAUSE NO. 06-14-00225-CR CAUSE NO. 06-14-00226-CR CAUSE NO. 06-14-00227-CR FILED IN

6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS

THE COURT OF APPEALS 4/13/2015 4:07:49 PM

FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEBBIE AUTREY

AT TEXARKANA Clerk _______________________________________________________________

ELIZABETH MENDOZA APPELLANT, V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE.

________________________________________________________________

CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT #6 DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS NO. F12-61870-X; F13-34344-X; F13-40734-X

__________________________________________________________________

APPELLANT’S BRIEF __________________________________________________________________

BRUCE ANTON STATE BAR NO. 01274700 SORRELS, UDASHEN & ANTON 2311 Cedar Springs Road Suite 250 Dallas, Texas 75201 214/468-8100 214/468-8104 - fax [email protected] Attorney for Appellant TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................... ii IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ....................................................... iii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................. iv-vi PROCEDURAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE (CHRONOLOGY) ................................................................................................ vii STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................................... 1 POINT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE .................................................................... 2

Relevant Facts ................................................................................................ 2 Reformation of Judgment ............................................................................. 2

PRAYER ................................................................................................................... 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .............................................................................. 3 ii

IDENTITIES OF PARTIES

APPELLANT Elizabeth Mendoza DEFENSE COUNSEL AT TRIAL Winston Shepherd

Roger Lennox APPELLANT’S ATTORNEY ON APPEAL Bruce Anton

Sorrels, Udashen & Anton 2311 Cedar Springs Rd #250 Dallas, Texas 75201

STATE’S ATTORNEYS AT TRIAL Josh Healy

Brandi Mitchell Jody Warner Kenna Miller Caitlin Paver Assistant District Attorney 133 N. Riverside Drive Dallas, Texas 75207

STATE’S ATTORNEY ON APPEAL not yet designated JUDGE Honorable Anthony Randall

Magistrate Judge Honorable Dorothy Shead Magistrate Judge Honorable Jeanine Howard Criminal District Court #6 Dallas County, Texas iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES PAGE Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd)………2 Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993)……………………2 Christian v. State _S.W.3d_, 2013 WL 5969565 (Tex.App.-Dallas,2013)……….2 Ramirez v. State, 336 S.W.3d 846, 852 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2011, pet. ref'd)……2

CODES AND RULES Tex.R.App. P. 43.2(b) ................................................................................................ 6 iv CHARGE Aggravated assault w/deadly weapon

Offense date: October 27, 2012 Arrest date: October 27, 2012 Indictment: November 26, 2012 (CR.13)

PLEA Guilty (RR2.8)

May 2, 2013

PLEA BARGAIN 2 years deferred probation (CR.35) JURY WAIVED (CR.35-36) JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE May 22, 2013(CR.40-41) MOTION TO ADJUDICATE Filed September 10, 2014 (CR.47-

48,53-53)

Heard November 13, 2014 PLEA True (CR.60-61,RR5.8) VERDICT ON PUNISHMENT 6 years TDC (RR5.19) JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE November 13,2014 (CR.56-57) MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL Filed November 18, 2014 (CR.63) NOTICE OF APPEAL November 18, 2014 (CR.62) v CHARGE Possession of controlled substance

Less than 1 gram Offense date: March 18, 2014 Arrest date: April 16, 2014 Indictment: May 2, 2014(CR.7)

MOTION TO REDUCE CHARGE TO ATTEMPTED POSSESSION July 2, 2014(CR.27) PLEA Guilty (CR.19)

July 2, 2014

PLEA BARGAIN 10 months deferred probation (CR.19) JURY WAIVED July 2, 2104 (CR.19) JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE July 2, 2014(CR.21-22) MOTION TO ADJUDICATE Filed September 10, 2014(CR.36)

Heard November 13, 2014 PLEA True (CR. 44,RR5.8) VERDICT ON PUNISHMENT 1 year county jail(RR5.19) JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE November 13,2014 (CR.38-39) MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL Filed November 18, 2014 (CR.46) NOTICE OF APPEAL November 18, 2014 (CR.47) vi CHARGE Unauthorized use of a motor vehicle

Offense date: April 10, 2012 Arrest date: April 10, 2012 Indictment: waived (CR.11)

PLEA Guilty

May 2, 2013(RR2.8) PLEA BARGAIN 2 years deferred probation (CR.25) JURY WAIVED (CR.25) JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE May 22, 2013 (CR.34-35) MOTION TO ADJUDICATE Filed September 10, 2014(CR.40-

41,47-48)

Heard November 13, 2014 PLEA True (RR5.8) VERDICT ON PUNISHMENT 10 months State jail (RR5.20) JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE November 13,2014 (CR.50-51) MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL Filed November 18, 2014(CR.55) NOTICE OF APPEAL November 18, 2014(CR.56) vii

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Elizabeth Mendoza, the appellant, was placed on probation for three separate offenses: aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, and attempted possession of a controlled substance. Subsequently, the State moved to adjudicate her guilt on these offenses. Mendoza entered a plea of true to the violations in each offense and proceeded without benefit of a plea bargain. (RR5.8) After hearing testimony from Ms. Mendoza, the court revoked her probation and assessed the following punishments: in Cause No. F12-61870-X, 6 years confinement in TDC for the offense of aggravated assault; in Cause No. F13-40734- X 10 months confinement in State jail for the offense of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle; and in Cause No. F13-34344-X 10 months in the county jail for the offense of attempted possession of a controlled substance. (RR5.19-20) These appeals are taken therefrom.

POINT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE

THE JUDGMENTS AND SENTENCES IN EACH CAUSE INCORRECTLY STATE THAT APPELLANT ENTERED INTO A PLEA BARGAIN AGREEMENT.

Relevant Facts Appellant Mendoza was charged in three causes: aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, and attempted possession of a controlled substance. Although Mendoza entered into plea agreements for probation in each cause, when the State moved to adjudicate her guilt, she entered pleas of true without benefit of a plea bargain. Nonetheless, the judgments and sentences reflect that the sentences were based upon agreed pleas.

Reformation of Judgment Appellate courts have the power to modify the judgment of the trial court to make the record speak the truth when the court has the necessary information to do so. Tex.R.App. P. 43.2(b). Ramirez v. State, 336 S.W.3d 846, 852 (Tex.App.- Amarillo 2011, pet. ref'd) (citing Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993)). Appellate courts have the power to reform whatever the trial court could have corrected by a judgment nunc pro tunc where the evidence necessary to correct the judgment appears in the record. Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd). The power to reform a judgment is “not dependent upon the request of any party, nor does it turn on the question of whether a party has or has not objected in the trial court.” Id. at 529–30. This includes the power to correct an incorrect statement of the existence of a plea bargain. Compare Christian v. State ___S.W.3d___, 2013 WL 5969565 (Tex.App.-Dallas,2013).

PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays that this Court will reform the judgment in this case.

Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Bruce Anton BRUCE ANTON State Bar No. 01274700 Sorrels Udashen & Anton 2311 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 250 Dallas, Texas 75201 214/468-8100 214/468-8104 facsimile ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of Appellant’s brief was served on District Attorney of Dallas County via email to [email protected] on the 13th day of April, 2015.

/s/ Bruce Anton BRUCE ANTON

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(3), undersigned counsel certifies that this brief complies with:

1. the type-volume limitation of TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(2)(B) because this brief contains 896 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(1).

2. the typeface requirements of TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(e) and the type style requirements of TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(e) because this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word 2011 in 14-point Times New Roman.

/s/ Bruce Anton BRUCE ANTON