PAUL LINFORD, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

REVERSED AND REMANDED , and Opinion Filed December 15, 1998
 
 
S
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-93-00870-CR
............................
PAUL LINFORD, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
..............................................................
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1-82811-92
..............................................................
O P I N I O N
Before Chief Justice Thomas and Justices Bridges and Roach
Opinion by Justice Roach
        Paul Linford was convicted of theft of property valued at $200 or more but less than $750, and received a probated sentence. Appellant filed a notice of appeal, and the clerk's record was filed. On June 26, 1998, after adopting the trial court's findings that appellant no longer desired to prosecute the appeal, we ordered the appeal submitted without the reporter's record or briefs. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3, 38.8.
        On July 15, 1998, we received a letter from appellant stating that he did wish to continue the appeal and that counsel Wayne Ames is no longer representing him. The letter stated that Mr. Ames was advised to petition for withdrawal from the appeal, new counsel will be Josh Weber [sic], and appellant presumed Mr. Webber would be contacting the Court "in the near future." When we did not receive any communication from Mr. Webber by July 29, 1998, we sent him a letter informing him of appellant's assertions in the July 15, 1998 letter. We directed Mr. Webber to inform the Court, within fifteen days of the date of the letter, regarding whether he was representing appellant in the appeal. A copy of the letter was sent to appellant, the Collin County District Attorney, and Mr. Ames. We did not receive a response from anyone.
        Absent appellant's brief, no points of error are properly before us. Thus, we reviewed the record for fundamental error. The judgment in this case reflects that punishment was assessed at two years confinement, probated for one year. At the time of the offense, FN:1 theft of property valued at $200 or more but less than $750 was a Class A misdemeanor. See Act of May 23, 1991, 72d Leg., R.S., ch. 565, §1, 1991 Tex. Gen. Laws 2003, 2003 (subsequent amendments omitted) (current version at Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03 (Vernon Supp. 1998)). At the time of the offense, a Class A misdemeanor carried a maximum punishment of one year confinement and a $3000 fine. See Act of May 2, 1991, 72d Leg., R.S., ch. 108, §1, 1991 Tex. Gen. Laws 681, 681 (subsequent amendments omitted) (current version at Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.21 (Vernon 1994)). Thus, the two-year sentence of confinement, albeit probated, is outside the statutory range. A judgment imposing punishment not authorized by law is void and constitutes fundamental error. See Heath v. State, 817 S.W.2d 335, 336 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see also Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(b).
        This Court may reform a judgment to speak the truth if we have sufficient information to do so. See Banks v. State, 708 S.W.2d 460, 462 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529-30 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd). No reporter's record has been filed in this case, so we cannot determine what sentence the trial court orally pronounced. There is a handwritten docket sheet entry that says:
 
PNGBC found guilty 3000.00 probated
1 year/2 years rest. 700.00 30 days in jail
The docket sheet entry is not signed. Moreover, we cannot conclude that these cryptic notations constitute sufficient information to be able to reform the trial court's judgment.
 
 
 
 
 
        Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's judgment as to punishment only. We remand this cause for a new punishment hearing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 44.29(b) (Vernon Supp. 1998).
                                                          
                                                          JOHN R. ROACH
                                                          JUSTICE
 
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
 
FN:1 The offense was alleged to have occurred on May 7, 1992.