MICHAEL ALLEN HARRIS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRMED as MODIFIED; Opinion Filed July 10, 2007.
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-06-01404-CR
No. 05-06-01405-CR
............................
MICHAEL ALLEN HARRIS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F05-15210-RW; F05-15215-RW
.............................................................
OPINION
Before Justices Wright, Richter and Lang
Opinion By Justice Lang
        
        Appellant, Michael Allen Harris, brings this appeal from the trial court's judgments convicting him of aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than fourteen years of age. In three issues, appellant argues that the recitation of the judgments should be modified because the names of the attorneys representing the State and Defense are incorrectly reflected in the judgments. For the reasons set out below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in cause number F05-15215-W, and we modify and affirm the judgment of the trial court in cause number F05-15210-W to correctly recite the name of appellant's attorney as Heath Harris.
                                        
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
 
        On August 28, 2006, appellant pled guilty to the charged offenses of aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than fourteen years of age. On August 31, 2006, the jury found appellant guilty and assessed punishment in each case (F05-15210-W and F05-15215-W) at confinement for life in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and assessed a $10,000 fine in each case. On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court's judgments should be modified because the names of the attorneys representing the State and Defense are incorrectly reflected in the judgments.
II. MODIFICATION OF THE JUDGMENTS
 
In issues one and two, appellant argues that the trial court's judgments in cause numbers F05-15215-W and F05-15210-W erroneously reflect the name of the State's attorney as “A[.] Griffith,” when the name of the State's attorney reflected in the record is Mandy Griffith. In issue number three, appellant argues that the judgment in cause number F05-15210-W erroneously recites the name of his attorney as “Heath 214-824-7711 Harris,” when in fact the name of his attorney is Heath Harris. Appellant argues that the judgments should be modified to reflect the names of the attorneys as they appear in the record.
In response to issues one and two, the State argues that the recital of the name of its attorney as “A[.] Griffith” is correct because the recital references the attorney's actual name. In regard to issue three, the State agrees that the recital of the name of appellant's attorney is incorrect, and the trial court's judgment should be reformed in that regard.
A. Applicable Law
 
An appellate court has the power to modify an incorrect judgment to make the record “speak the truth.” See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd). In fact, an appellate court has a duty to correct the record to “speak the truth” when the matter has been called to its attention by any source, including its own finding, and when it has the necessary data to do so. Asberry, 813 S.W.2d at 531. Furthermore, the Court of Criminal Appeals has refused to interpret Rule 80(b)(2), now embodied in rule 43.2(b), as limiting the appellate court's authority to reform judgments only in situations involving clerical mistakes. Bigley, 865 S.W.2d at 27. Therefore, it is clear that the court of appeals has the authority and a duty to correct clerical errors in the record when the information to do so is available.
B. Application of the Law to the Facts
 
The judgments in cause numbers F05-15215-W and F05-15210-W recite the name of the State's attorney as “A[.] Griffith” instead of Mandy Griffith, the attorney's nickname used exclusively throughout the record. “A[.] Griffith” references the attorney's actual name, Amanda Griffith. Therefore, the record “speaks the truth,” is not incorrect, and need not be modified. Appellant's first and second issues on appeal are decided against him.
The judgment in cause number F05-15210-W recites the name of appellant's attorney as “Heath 212-824-7711 Harris.” The addition of the telephone number between the attorney's first and last name is obviously erroneous. The recital of appellant's attorney as “Heath 212-824-7711 Harris” is modified to read “Heath Harris. Appellant's third issue on appeal is decided in his favor.
III. CONCLUSION
 
Having decided against appellant on points one and two, we affirm the trial court's judgment in F05-15215-W.
Having decided in appellant's favor on point number three, the judgment in cause number F05-15210-W is modified to correctly recite the name of appellant's attorney as Heath Harris.                                                           
                                                          
                                                          DOUGLAS S. LANG
                                                          JUSTICE
 
 
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
061404f.u05