Mutekulwa Grace Mwenebatu A.K.A. Mutekulwa G. Mwenebatu v. State ( 2018 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-17-00160-CR
MUTEKULWA GRACE APPELLANT
MWENEBATU A.K.A. MUTEKULWA
G. MWENEBATU
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 1348578D
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
In one point, appellant Mutekulwa Grace Mwenebatu a.k.a. Mutekulwa G.
Mwenebatu appeals the trial court’s judgment that reflects his conviction and
fifteen-year sentence for robbery.2 He does not ask us to reverse his conviction
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.02(a) (West 2011).
or sentence. Instead, he argues only that the trial court’s judgment incorrectly
states that he entered a plea of true to one ground on which the State asked the
trial court to revoke his community supervision and to adjudicate his guilt. He
asks us to modify the judgment to show that he pleaded not true to that ground.
After a grand jury indicted Mwenebatu for committing robbery, he pleaded
guilty, and the trial court deferred adjudication of his guilt and placed him on
community supervision for seven years. Just over a year after Mwenebatu’s
placement on community supervision, the State filed a petition for the trial court
to adjudicate his guilt. The State alleged that he had violated terms of his
community supervision by committing a new offense, by failing to complete
community service obligations, and by failing to verify that he had taken
prescribed medications.
At a hearing on the State’s petition, Mwenebatu pleaded not true to the
allegation that he had committed a new offense, and he pleaded true to the other
two allegations.3 After receiving the parties’ evidence and arguments, the trial
court found all three allegations true. The parties then presented more evidence
and arguments on Mwenebatu’s punishment, and the trial court adjudicated his
guilt and sentenced him to fifteen years’ confinement. The trial court signed a
judgment that reflected the court’s adjudication of Mwenebatu’s guilt and his
Mwenebatu’s pleas of true, standing alone, authorized the trial court to
3
revoke his community supervision and to adjudicate his guilt. See Tapia v. State,
462 S.W.3d 29, 31 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015).
2
sentence. The judgment stated that he had pleaded “True” to the allegations in
the State’s petition.
Mwenebatu asks us to correct the trial court’s judgment to show that he
pleaded not true to the State’s first allegation and true to the second and third
allegations. We may reform a trial court’s judgment to make the judgment “speak
the truth.” Edwards v. State, 497 S.W.3d 147, 164 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 2016, pet. ref’d) (quoting Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d)); see also Simon v. State, No. 02-11-00415-CR,
2013 WL 362783, at *1 n.2, *4 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 31, 2013, no pet.)
(mem. op., not designated for publication) (reforming a judgment to correctly
reflect that an appellant had pleaded not true to an allegation in a petition to
adjudicate). Accordingly, we sustain Mwenebatu’s sole point, modify the trial
court’s judgment to reflect that he pleaded not true to the first allegation in the
State’s adjudication petition and true to the second and third allegations, and
affirm the judgment as modified. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b).
/s/ Wade Birdwell
WADE BIRDWELL
JUSTICE
PANEL: SUDDERTH, C.J.; WALKER and BIRDWELL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: March 1, 2018
3