Kendron Lateef Miles v. The State of Texas--Appeal from Co Ct at Law No 3 & Probate Ct of Brazoria County

Memorandum Opinion filed February 1, 2007, Withdrawn, Affirmed as Modified and Substitute Memorandum Opinion filed February 8, 2007

Memorandum Opinion filed February 1, 2007, Withdrawn, Affirmed as Modified and Substitute Memorandum Opinion filed February 8, 2007.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-06-00547-CR

NO. 14-06-00548-CR

____________

KENDRON LATEEF MILES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court Law No. 3 and Probate Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 143574 & 143575

S U B S T I T U T E M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

We withdraw our opinion issued February 1, 2007, and issue this opinion in its place to include both cause numbers.

After a jury trial, appellant was convicted of the offenses of misdemeanor assault and interference with an emergency call. On April 11, 2006, the trial court sentenced appellant to one year in jail on each offense, with the sentences to be served consecutively. Appellant filed a notice of appeal in each case. In a single issue, appellant asserts that his sentences should not have been ordered to be served consecutively, citing LaPorte v. State, 840 S.W.2d 412, 415 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). We modify the judgments, and as modified, affirm.

The State and counsel for appellant agreed that the two charges had resulted from the same episode and transaction on February 28, 2005. Texas Penal Code Section 3.03(a) requires that A[w]hen the accused is found guilty of more than one offense arising out of the same criminal episode prosecuted in a single criminal action, . . . the sentences shall run concurrently.@ Tex. Penal Code Ann. ' 3.03 (Vernon Supp. 2006).[1] The Brazoria County District Attorney=s Office, on behalf of the State of Texas, has agreed that appellant is entitled to the relief he seeks.

Therefore, we sustain appellant=s sole issue. We reform the trial court=s judgments to delete the cumulation orders and reflect that the sentence in trial court number 143575 is to be served concurrently with the sentence in cause number 143574. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed as modified.

PER CURIAM

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed February 8, 2007.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Fowler and Edelman.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

[1] The code lists certain exceptions under which the trial court has discretion to order consecutive sentences, none of which are applicable here. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. ' 3.03(b) (Vernon Supp. 2006).