FRANKLIN DEL JACKSON, Appellant v. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRM as MODIFIED and Opinion Filed November 24, 2008
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-08-00042-CR
............................
FRANKLIN DEL JACKSON, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F05-18514-LTY
.............................................................
OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Richter, and Mazzant
Opinion By Justice Richter
        Franklin Del Jackson waived a jury and pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudicating guilt, placed appellant on five years' community supervision, and assessed a $3000 fine. The State later moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging appellant violated the terms of his community supervision, including committing new offenses. At a hearing, the trial court granted the motion, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at life imprisonment. In three points of error, appellant contends the trial court erred by violating the objectives of the penal code in imposing a life sentence, and the judgment should be modified to show some of the allegations in the motion to adjudicate were abandoned by the State and that appellant pleaded not true to some of the allegations. We affirm the trial court's judgment as modified.
        In his first point of error, appellant contends the trial court erred by violating the objectives of the Texas Penal Code by sentencing him to life imprisonment. Appellant asserts the evidence shows he only committed burglaries of vehicles and homes, but never committed a violent offense. The State responds that appellant has failed to preserve his complaint for appellate review and, alternatively, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in assessing appellant's sentence.
        Appellant did not complain about the sentence either at the time it was imposed or in his motion for new trial. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a)(1); Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.). Moreover, the trial court sentenced appellant as an habitual offender, and it imposed a punishment within the statutory range for the offense. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.42(c)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2008); Kirk v. State, 949 S.W.2d 769, 772 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, pet. ref'd). We conclude the trial court did not err in assessing the life sentence. See Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). We overrule appellant's first point of error.
        In his second and third points of error, appellant contends the written judgment should be modified to show the State abandoned some of the allegations contained in the motion to adjudicate and that he pleaded not true to some of those allegations. The State responds that the trial court is not required to specify which allegations it found to be true.
        In its amended motion to adjudicate, the State alleged appellant committed twenty violations of his community supervision, including fifteen new burglaries of vehicles and habitations, assault with bodily injury, giving a false name to a police officer, and three technical violations. During a hearing, the State struck the assault with bodily injury violation and two burglary violations from the motion. Appellant pleaded true to sixteen of the remaining violations and not true to one violation.         Texas courts require a defendant to make a request for specific findings. See King v. State, 649 S.W.2d 42, 46 (Tex. Crim. App.1983). In the absence of such a request, the trial court's failure to make specific findings in the order revoking probation is not reversible error. Id. Here, appellant did not request specific findings. Moreover, the motion to adjudicate is included in the record, and the judgment recites the trial court found the allegations in the motion to adjudicate had been proven. We overrule appellant's second and third point of error.
        The record shows the State filed an amended motion to adjudicate guilt. During a hearing on the motion, the trial court found appellant had violated the terms of his community supervision as outlined in the amended motion to adjudicate. However, the trial court's written judgment incorrectly recites appellant violated the conditions of community supervision “as set out in the State's original motion to adjudicate guilt.” We modify the trial court's judgment to show appellant violated the terms and conditions of community supervision “as set out in the State's amended motion to adjudicate guilt.” 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.
 
 
 
                                                          
                                                          MARTIN RICHTER
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
080042F.U05