Schulz, Larry Michelle v. The State of Texas--Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 3 of Dallas County (memorandum opinion )

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
AFFIRM as modified; Opinion issued February 14, 2013 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-00280-CR No. 05-12-00281-CR No. 05-12-00282-CR LARRY MICHELLE SCHULZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F10-00512-NJ, F10-00517-J, F10-00518-J MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, O Neill, and Murphy Opinion by Justice Bridges Larry Michelle Schulz waived a jury and pleaded guilty to engaging in organized criminal activity, theft of property valued at $20,000 or more but less than $100,000 from an elderly person, and unlawful restraint. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. ยงยง 20.02(a), 31.03(a), 71.02(a) (West 2011 & Supp. 2012). Pursuant to plea agreements, the trial court deferred adjudicating guilt, placed appellant on ten years community supervision, assessed a $1,000 fine, and ordered $85,506.22 in restitution in each case. In her sole issue on appeal, appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the amount of restitution ordered. In our opinion of November 29, 2012, we sustained appellant s issue, set aside the trial court s restitution orders, and ordered the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the proper amount of restitution. On January 9, 2013, we reinstated the appeals and adopted the trial court s finding that the parties reached an agreement regarding the amount of restitution. We have received supplemental records containing the amended community supervision condition that orders appellant to pay $45,000 in restitution. Accordingly, we modify the trial court s judgments to reflect the restitution amount is $45,000 in each case. 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 judgments. /David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 120280F.U05 -2- Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT LARRY MICHELLE SCHULZ, Appellant No. 05-12-00280-CR Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F10-00512-NJ). Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges, Justices O Neill and Murphy participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court s opinion of this date, the trial court s order of deferred adjudication is MODIFIED as follows: The section entitled Restitution is modified to show $45,000. As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court s order of deferred adjudication. Judgment entered February 14, 2013. /David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE -3- Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT LARRY MICHELLE SCHULZ, Appellant No. 05-12-00281-CR Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F10-00517-J). Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges, Justices O Neill and Murphy participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court s opinion of this date, the trial court s order of deferred adjudication is MODIFIED as follows: The section entitled Restitution is modified to show $45,000. As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court s order of deferred adjudication. Judgment entered February 14, 2013. /David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE -4- Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT LARRY MICHELLE SCHULZ, Appellant No. 05-12-00282-CR Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F10-00518-J). Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges, Justices O Neill and Murphy participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court s opinion of this date, the trial court s order of deferred adjudication is MODIFIED as follows: The section entitled Restitution is modified to show $45,000. As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court s order of deferred adjudication. Judgment entered February 14, 2013. /David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE -5-

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.