APRIL ANNETTE MAY a/k/a APRIL ANNETTE SMITH, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Annotate this Case

AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed September 13, 2006.
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-06-00143-CR
............................
APRIL ANNETTE MAY a/k/a APRIL ANNETTE SMITH, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 380-80943-02
.............................................................
                                                  
OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, FitzGerald, and Lang
Opinion By Justice Lang
        
        April Annette May appeals the trial court's judgment revoking her community supervision.   See Footnote 1  In her sole issue on appeal, May argues the trial court erred when it did not grant her sixty-one days of back-time credit, which she claims she is entitled to receive. We conclude the trial court did not err when it granted her twenty-one days of back-time credit for time served because there is no evidence in the record that May is entitled to additional time credit. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.
 
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
 
        In October 2002, May pleaded guilty to theft under $1500, enhanced by two previous thefts. Punishment was assessed by the trial court at two years' confinement in state jail, probated for five years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke May's community supervision, alleging several violations of the supervision conditions. The capias issued by the trial court reflects that May was arrested on December 23, 2005.
        At the revocation hearing, May pleaded true to the allegations in the motion to revoke. Following a hearing, the judge revoked May's community supervision and sentenced her to two years' confinement in a state jail facility. The judgment awards twenty-one days of credit for the time May spent in jail between her December 23, 2005 arrest and the January 12, 2006 revocation hearing.
        In her sole issue on appeal, May argues the trial court erred in not awarding her credit for additional days that she asserts she spent in jail before the revocation hearing. She claims she was arrested in Florida on November 13, 2005, which entitles her to a total of sixty-one days of back- time credit. The State contends that May is not entitled to the sixty-one days of back-time credit she claims because the record does not support her claim.   See Footnote 2 
II. CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED
A. Applicable Law
 
        Under the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, a trial court may choose to deny a defendant credit for time served in a county jail from the time of arrest until the time the defendant is sentenced to confinement in a state jail facility. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 15(h)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2006). However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that denying credit for periods of confinement pending a revocation hearing violates due course of law under the Texas Constitution because a defendant might be chilled from exercising the constitutional right to a revocation hearing. Ex parte Bates, 978 S.W.2d 575, 578 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (en banc). See also Jimerson v. State, 957 S.W.2d 875, 877-78 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1997, no pet.).
        An appellate court may modify an incorrect judgment when the record gives the information necessary to do so. Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); see Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (en banc); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529-30 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd). Additionally, appellate courts have the authority to modify sentences on appeal when the necessary data and evidence are before the court. Banks v. State, 708 S.W.2d 460, 462 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (en banc) (modified written sentence to reflect record of proceedings regarding cumulation of sentence); McCray v. State, 876 S.W.2d 214, 216 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1994, no pet.) (modified sentence on appeal to maximum term for charged crime of kidnapping because trial court had sentenced defendant to term of imprisonment not authorized by law). An appellate court will not, however, modify a judgment when the record on appeal does not contain the information necessary to do so. See Nixon v. State, 572 S.W.2d 699, 701 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (affirmed judgment where record did not reflect appellant was entitled to back-time credit requested on appeal); see also Steinocher v. State, 127 S.W.3d 160, 163 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. dism'd, untimely filed) (affirmed judgment where no evidence appeared on record showing defendant was entitled to requested credit).
B. Analysis
 
        May contends she was arrested in Jacksonville, Florida, on November 13, 2005, on the warrant issued pursuant to the State's motion to revoke community supervision. Therefore, she argues, the judgment should reflect credit for the sixty-one days from November 13, 2005, to the date of her sentencing, January 12, 2006. The State asserts that May was properly credited for the twenty-one days she spent in jail between her December 23, 2005 arrest on the warrant and her revocation hearing. May is not entitled to sixty-one days' credit, the State argues, because there is no evidence she was jailed on the warrant before December 23, 2005.
        The record reflects that May was arrested on December 23, 2005, and her revocation hearing was held on January 12, 2006. The twenty-one days between her arrest and revocation hearing were properly credited in the trial court's written judgment as required by article I, section 19 of the Texas Constitution and Bates. See TEX. CONST. art. 1, § 19; Bates, 978 S.W.2d at 577-78. May does not identify any evidence in the record that supports her claim that she was arrested on November 13, 2005, in Florida. Accordingly, based on the record, May is not entitled to any additional back- time credit. See Nixon, 572 S.W.2d at 701.
III. CONCLUSION
 
        We conclude the trial court did not err in not granting May sixty-one days' credit for time served. May's sole issue is decided against her. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.
                
 
                                                          
                                                          DOUGLAS S. LANG
                                                          JUSTICE
                
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
060143f.u05
 
Footnote 1 Appellant testified that her “true name” is April Annette May.
Footnote 2 The State asserts that if May has additional evidence not in the record on appeal, her proper remedy is to file a motion for a judgment nunc pro tunc with the trial court.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.