John Rafael Arguello v. State ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                              NUMBER 13-17-00396-CR
    COURT OF APPEALS
    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
    JOHN RAFAEL ARGUELLO,                                                                 Appellant,
    v.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                                   Appellee.
    On appeal from the 258th District Court
    of San Jacinto County, Texas.
    MEMORANDUM OPINION1
    Before Justices Contreras, Longoria, and Hinojosa
    Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa
    Appellant John Rafael Arguello appeals from a judgment revoking community
    supervision and adjudicating guilt on one count of theft of property, a class A
    1 Pursuant to a docket-equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas, the appeal has
    been transferred to this Court from the Ninth Court of Appeals in Beaumont, Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE
    ANN. § 73.001 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.).
    misdemeanor. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(e)(3) (West, Westlaw through 2017
    1st C.S.). The trial court sentenced Arguello to confinement for 300 days in the county
    jail with sixty-six days credit for time served. In his sole issue, Arguello complains that
    the trial court erroneously included a requirement that he register as a sex offender. See
    TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 62.102 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). We
    affirm as modified.
    I. BACKGROUND
    Arguello, was charged by indictment with one count of committing theft of a 1950
    Ford Jubilee tractor, worth between $1,500 and $20,000, a state-jail felony. See TEX.
    PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(e)(4). Arguello waived his right to trial and pled guilty to the
    lesser included offense of class A misdemeanor theft. The trial court accepted Arguello’s
    guilty plea, placed him on community supervision for two years, required him to perform
    120 hours of community service at a minimum rate of eight hours each month, ordered
    him to pay a Crime Stoppers fee of fifty dollars, and assessed a $500 fine. The terms of
    the trial court’s community supervision order required, among other things, that Arguello
    report in person to the community supervision and corrections department once a month
    and submit proof of academic achievement to the department within thirty days.
    Approximately five months later, the State filed a motion to revoke community
    supervision. In its motion, the State alleged that Arguello had violated the terms of his
    community supervision by failing to: (1) report in person to the community supervision
    and corrections department for the months of September, October, and November; (2)
    complete 120 hours of community service; and (3) submit proof of academic achievement
    2
    to the department within thirty days. 2 At the revocation hearing, Arguello pleaded “true”
    to all allegations by the State.
    The trial court found that Arguello violated the terms of community supervision.
    The trial court revoked Arguello’s community supervision and sentenced him to
    confinement for 300 days. The written judgment cited the statute for the offense as
    section 62.102 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, titled “Failure to Comply with
    Registration Requirements,” and noted that Arguello was required to register as a sex
    offender. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 62.102. This appeal followed.
    II. DISCUSSION
    Arguello’s sole issue is that the trial court erred by including a reference to section
    62.102 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and by requiring him to register as a sex
    offender. See 
    id. According to
    Arguello, chapter 62 of the Texas Code of Criminal
    Procedure (1) does not apply to the offense of theft of property; (2) does not apply to him
    for any violations of his community supervision; and (3) mainly applies only to persons
    who engage in sexual offenses.
    This Court has the authority to modify judgments to correct typographical errors
    and make the record speak the truth. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); French v. State, 
    830 S.W.2d 607
    , 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Martinez v. State, 
    527 S.W.3d 310
    , 329 (Tex.
    App.—Corpus Christi 2017, pet. ref’d).               The orally pronounced judgment at trial is
    embodied in the written judgment and should conform strictly to what is spoken. See
    TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.01 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.); Ex parte
    2   The State also alleged numerous instances of Arguello’s failure to pay fines and fees.
    3
    Madding, 
    70 S.W.3d 131
    , 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Banks v. State, 
    708 S.W.2d 460
    ,
    462 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986).
    Here, the judgment revoking community supervision did not conform to the trial
    court’s oral pronouncement of sentence. See Ex parte 
    Madding, 70 S.W.3d at 135
    ; see
    also 
    Banks, 708 S.W.2d at 462
    (a “written sentence should be reformed to reflect the
    record of the proceedings”). Further, the references in the written judgment to the sex
    offender statute appear to be typographical errors. We therefore modify the judgment to
    reflect a conviction under Texas Penal Code section 31.03(e)(3) for theft of property, a
    class A misdemeanor, and that the sex offender registration requirements do not apply to
    this offense. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(e)(3). We sustain Arguello’s sole
    issue.
    III. CONCLUSION
    The trial court’s judgment is affirmed as modified.
    LETICIA HINOJOSA
    Justice
    Do not publish.
    TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
    Delivered and filed the
    28th day of June, 2018.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-17-00396-CR

Filed Date: 6/28/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/2/2018