LAILLA LATISHA MENARD, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRMED as Modified; Opinion Filed November 19, 2007.
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-07-00046-CR
............................
LAILLA LATISHA MENARD, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F04-55885-NI
.............................................................
OPINION
Before Justices Whittington, Bridges, and Francis
Opinion By Justice Francis
        Lailla Latisha Menard waived a jury and pleaded guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a razor blade. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudicating guilt, placed appellant on community supervision for three years, and assessed a $2000 fine. The State later moved to proceed with adjudication of guilt, alleging appellant violated the terms of her community supervision. The trial court found the allegations true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at sixteen years in prison. In two issues, appellant contends the trial court's judgment should be modified to delete the deadly weapon finding and correct the date she was placed on community supervision. We affirm the trial court's judgment as modified.
        In her first issue, appellant argues the trial court's judgment improperly includes a deadly weapon finding that was not orally pronounced at sentencing after adjudication of guilt. Appellant asks this court to modify the judgment to delete the deadly weapon finding. The State responds that the written judgment properly includes a deadly weapon finding. We agree with the State. A deadly weapon finding is not part of a sentence and an affirmative finding of a deadly weapon does not have to be orally pronounced at sentencing. See State v. Ross, 953 S.W.2d 748, 752 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). Thus, while the better practice is to pronounce the deadly weapon finding, such a pronouncement is not required to include the finding in the judgment. See id. We resolve appellant's first issue against her.
        In her second issue, appellant argues the trial court's judgment should be modified to reflect the correct date she was originally placed on community supervision. The record shows the trial court placed appellant on community supervision on December 2, 2004. The trial court's written judgment recites the date of the original community supervision order was December 2, 2002. Thus, the trial court's judgment is incorrect. We sustain appellant's second issue. We modify the trial court's judgment to show the date of the original community supervision order was December 2, 2004. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529-30 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd).
        As modified, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
        
 
                                                          
                                                          MOLLY FRANCIS
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
070046f.u05