Vincent Bernard Jenkins v. State
05-14-00195-CR
| Tex. App. | Jun 3, 2015Background
- Appellant Jenkins appeals a judgment revoking community supervision and sentencing him to ten years for theft of property valued at $1,500–$19,999, enhanced to a third-degree felony based on two prior state jail felonies.
- In July 2011 Jenkins pled guilty/open plea to the theft charge; the trial court sentenced ten years, suspended, with probation for ten years.
- In September 2013 the State moved to revoke probation; Jenkins signed a judicial confession and pleaded true; the trial court revoked probation and sentenced him to ten years.
- The State argued clerical errors existed in the judgments (notably about plea bargains and enhancement findings); the operative judgment reflected only the second enhancement, prompting the court to correct and affirm the judgment as modified.
- The court (a) modified the revocation judgment to reflect both enhancement paragraphs true, (b) rejected Jenkins’s voluntariness and full-range-of-punishment challenges, and (c) affirmed the modified judgment.
- Conclusion: The judgment revoking community supervision is modified to reflect two true enhancements and is affirmed as modified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness of the true plea to the motion to revoke | Jenkins contends the court’s remarks showed confusion and coerced him. | State contends voluntariness was not preserved due to the record and no timely objection. | Appellant’s voluntariness issue is overruled (not preserved) and resolved against Jenkins. |
| Illegality of the sentence due to range | Jenkins argues the range was misapplied due to clerical error. | State argues the corrected judgment places the offense within the correct range (two to ten years). | Ten-year sentence within the corrected, enhanced range; issue overruled. |
| Full-range-of-punishment due-process claim | Failure to consider full range violated due process. | Court considered the range and was not bound by any plea terms. | No due-process violation; issue overruled. |
| Clerical errors in judgments; correction requested by State | State asks to reform the judgment to reflect two enhancements. | Jenkins opposes changes not necessary to the operative judgment. | Judgment revoking community supervision modified to reflect both enhancement paragraphs; affirmed as modified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendez v. State, 138 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (preservation of voluntariness challenges in revocation context)
- Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (authority to modify judgments to reflect truth when record supports)
- Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991) (approving modification to reflect true findings)
- Grado v. State, 445 S.W.3d 736 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (waivable right to full-range punishment not raised until appeal)
- Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (category two rights—waivable-only rights)
- Cain v. State, 947 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (overruling related to waivable rights)
- Lively v. State, 338 S.W.3d 140 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011) (on preservation of voluntariness claims)
- Ducker v. State, 45 S.W.3d 791 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001) (considerations for voluntariness under totality of circumstances)
- Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (preservation of trial court errors)
- Aguilar v. State, 26 S.W.3d 901 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (preservation and error-notice principles)