Joseph Daryl Mathis v. State
01-14-00832-CR
| Tex. App. | Apr 1, 2015Background
- Appellant Mathis pled guilty to aggravated assault of a public servant under a plea agreement and received a five-year probation.
- The State later filed a motion to adjudicate Mathis’s guilt alleging probation violations.
- The trial court found several allegations in the State’s motion true and adjudicated Mathis’s guilt, imposing seven years’ confinement.
- A written notice of appeal was timely filed from the judgment.
- Mathis contends the judgment reflects that he pled true to the motion to adjudicate, whereas the docket shows a not-true plea; the State concedes reform may be needed but argues the record is unclear on the plea status.
- The State relies on case law to support reform rather than vacating the judgment, and seeks no other relief besides potential reform.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plea status to the motion to adjudicate | Mathis argues the judgment shows true, not not-true | Mathis asserts the docket shows not true and asks for reform | Record unclear on the plea; reform may be appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (guidance on claims of plea status and reform of judgments)
- Ex parte Insall, 224 S.W.3d 213 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (recognizes use of reform to address pleading ambiguities)
- Gutierrez v. State, 108 S.W.3d 304 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (plea and adjudication issues tied to threat of error on record)
- Hargesheimer v. State, 182 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (cited regarding standards for reviewing adjudications and reform)