Earl Eugene Bryant v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 6th District Court of Lamar County

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-06-00219-CR
______________________________
EARL EUGENE BRYANT, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Sixth Judicial District Court
Lamar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 20307
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Earl Eugene Bryant appeals from the final adjudication of his guilt for the offense of assault causing bodily injury. He was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment.

Bryant contends that the trial court had no jurisdiction to revoke his community supervision because a required capias was not issued. (1) See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, 21(b) (Vernon 2006). This claim runs headlong into legislatively imposed limits on an appeal from a determination to adjudicate. Article 42.12, Section 5(b) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure contains no jurisdictional exception. The sentence in question simply says, "No appeal may be taken from this determination." Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, 5(b) (Vernon 2006). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has recently explicitly held that "a jurisdictional attack on the trial court's determination is still an attack on that determination, and it may not be advanced on appeal." Davis v. State, 195 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

We may not address the issue. We overrule this contention of error.

Bryant next contends that the judgment adjudicating his guilt should be reformed, as it incorrectly states that he pled "true" to the charges against him, rather than "not true." The State agrees, as do we. (2)

We reform the judgment to reflect that Bryant pled "not true" to the ground alleged against him in the motion to adjudicate. As reformed, the judgment is affirmed.

 

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

 

Date Submitted: March 27, 2007

Date Decided: April 17, 2007

 

Do Not Publish

 

1. We also note that a supplemental record has now been filed that contains a capias issued before the adjudication proceeding.

2. The general rule is that, if we have the necessary data and evidence before us, we have the authority to correct and reform a judgment to make the record speak the truth. French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Splawn v. State, 160 S.W.3d 103, 107 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2005, pet. ref'd).