MICHAEL DEAN MOSES, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

AFFIRM as modified; Opinion issued June 30, 2008
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-07-01232-CR
No. 05-07-01233-CR
............................
 
MICHAEL DEAN MOSES, Appellant
 
V.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 195th District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F03-15897-HN; F03-15898-HN
.............................................................
 
OPINION
 
Before Justices Wright, Bridges, and Mazzant
Opinion By Justice Bridges
 
 
        Michael Dean Moses appeals his aggravated sexual assault convictions. Appellant pleaded no contest to both charges. The trial court found the evidence substantiated guilt in both cases but withheld findings of guilt and placed appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for 10 years and fined appellant $2000 in each case, with orders that the fines were already satisfied by the time appellant spent in jail awaiting trial. In five points of error, appellant argues that the judgment in cause number 05-07-01232-CR should be reformed to show his fine was satisfied by his time spent in jail awaiting trial and the trial court erred in (1) failing to withdraw his no contest plea in each case because he contested his guilt and (2) ordering his time as a condition of probation in each case to be served consecutively. We affirm the trial court's judgments.
        Because appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions, only a brief recitation of the facts is necessary. Appellant was charged with aggravated sexual assault of a child by digitally penetrating and having oral contact with the sexual organ of the complainant, a child under age seventeen. Appellant pleaded no contest to both charges and waived a jury trial. Following a hearing, the trial court found appellant guilty of both defenses. These appeals followed.
        In his first and second points of error, appellant argues the trial court erred in failing to withdraw appellant's no contest plea because appellant contested his guilt in each case. Appellant argues that, because he testified he did not commit the charged offenses and the complainant falsely accused him, the trial court was under an obligation to sua sponte withdraw his plea of no contest. However, a court has no sua sponte duty to withdraw a guilty or no contest plea, even if evidence presented at a plea hearing raises an issue as to the defendant's innocence. Williams v. State, 191 S.W.3d 242, 260 (Tex. App.-Austin 2006, no pet.). Accordingly, the trial court, the trier of fact, was under no duty to sua sponte withdraw appellant's no contest plea in these cases. Id. We overrule appellant's first and second points of error.
        In his third and fourth points of error, appellant argues the trial court erred in ordering the 180-day terms of confinement imposed as a condition of community supervision in each case to run consecutively. Preservation of a complaint for appellate review requires a timely, specific trial objection. Tex. R. App. P. 33.1. In this case, the trial court informed appellant that it would be stacking the terms of confinement. Appellant did not object. Accordingly, appellant has not preserved this issue for our review. Speth v. State, 6 S.W.3d 530, 534-35 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (defendant waives complaint about conditions of probation by not objecting to them at trial).         In his fifth point of error, appellant argues the judgment in cause number 05-07-01232-CR should be reformed to show that appellant's fine was satisfied by his time spent in jail awaiting trial. The State agrees. The record shows the trial court assessed a $2000 fine in each case but ordered that appellant's time served was “going to take care of that.” Accordingly, we sustain appellant's fifth point of error.
        The judgment in cause number 05-07-01232-CR is reformed to show that the fine assessed in that case was satisfied by appellant's time served. In all other respects, we affirm the trial court's judgments.
 
 
                                                          
                                                          DAVID L. BRIDGES
                                                          JUSTICE
 
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
071232F.U05