Steve Warren v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 114th District Court of Smith County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-10-00361-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS STEVE WARREN, APPELLANT § APPEAL FROM THE 114TH V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION Steve Warren appeals his conviction for indecency with a child, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty-five years. In one issue, Appellant argues that the trial court s written judgment does not reflect his plea of not true to the second enhancement allegation in the indictment. We modify and, as modified, affirm. BACKGROUND Appellant was charged by indictment with indecency with a child and pleaded not guilty. The indictment further alleged that Appellant had twice been previously convicted of a felony. The matter proceeded to a bench trial, following which the trial court found Appellant guilty as charged. Prior to his trial on punishment, Appellant pleaded true to the first enhancement allegation and not true to the second enhancement allegation. Following the presentation of evidence, the trial court found both enhancement allegations to be true and sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for twenty-five years. This appeal followed. VARIANCE BETWEEN WRITTEN JUDGMENT AND PLEA TO ENHANCEMENT In his sole issue, Appellant argues that the trial court s written judgment does not reflect his plea of not true to the second enhancement allegation in the indictment and should be modified. The State agrees. An appellate court has the power to correct and reform a trial court judgment to make the record speak the truth when it has the necessary data and information before it to do so. Cobb v. State, 95 S.W.3d 664, 668 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.). Here, the record reflects that, prior to his trial on punishment, Appellant pleaded true to the enhancement allegation that he had been previously convicted of arson, but not true to the second enhancement allegation that he had been previously convicted of injury to a child. However, the trial court s written judgment indicates that Appellant pleaded true to the enhancements. Accordingly, we hold that the judgment should be modified to accurately reflect Appellant s plea of not true to the second enhancement allegation. Appellant s sole issue is sustained. CONCLUSION We have sustained Appellant s sole issue. Having done so, we modify the trial court s judgment by deleting the notation that Appellant pleaded true to the enhancements and substitute a notation that Appellant pleaded true to the enhancement allegation that he had been previously convicted of arson and pleaded not true to the enhancement allegation that he had been previously convicted of injury to a child. We affirm the trial court s judgment as modified. SAM GRIFFITH Justice Opinion delivered August 17, 2011. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) 2
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.
