Clyde Phillips v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 114th District Court of Smith County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________ No. 06-11-00021-CR ______________________________ CLYDE PHILLIPS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 114th Judicial District Court Smith County, Texas Trial Court No. 114-1028-09 Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss MEMORANDUM OPINION In proceedings before the 241st Judicial District Court in Smith County,1 Clyde Phillips was adjudicated guilty of possession of marihuana and was sentenced to eighteen months in a state jail facility.2 Appealing that result, Phillips complains in a single point of error that the trial court s judgment3 incorrectly reflect[s] that Mr. Phillips entered a plea of true to the entirety of the Motion to Adjudicate. Phillips argues that, although he pled true to several allegations of community supervision violations, he pled not true as to one allegation. He urges this Court to reform the portion of the judgment stating Plea to Motion to Adjudicate: True. The State has agreed that the Court has the authority to correct this mistake in the judgment. We modify the judgment accordingly. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure give this Court authority to reform judgments to make the record speak the truth when the matter has been called to our attention by any source. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2; French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Rhoten v. State, 299 S.W.3d 349, 356 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2009, no pet.). The record reflects that 1 Originally appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV T CODE ANN. ยง 73.001 (Vernon 2005). We are unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Twelfth Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. 2 Phillips presents a single brief addressing this case and the trial court s adjudication of guilt for a separate offense of possession of a controlled substance. The issues and arguments are the same for both convictions, and we reach the same conclusion in both cases. Please see our opinion of instant date, Phillips v. State, cause number 06-11-00020-CR. 3 Phillips does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting revocation. 2 Phillips pled true to the following allegations in the State s motion to adjudicate: commission of the new offense of fleeing from a police officer, change of address without permission, and failure to pay court-appointed counsel fees.4 With respect to the allegation that Phillips attempted to alter or falsify drug test results by flushing with water, however, a plea of not true was entered. We hereby modify the trial court's judgment to reflect Phillips plea of true to the allegations contained within paragraphs II, III, and VII of the State s motion to adjudicate and his plea of not true to the allegation contained within paragraph VI. We affirm the trial court s judgment as modified. Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: June 15, 2011 June 16, 2011 Do Not Publish 4 The allegations to which Phillips pled true were contained within paragraphs II, III, and VII in the State s motion to adjudicate guilt. The State abandoned the allegations contained in paragraphs IV and V. Phillips pled not true to Paragraph VI. There was no allegation contained in paragraph I. 3
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.
