Date: 01-07-2017

Case Style:

Case Number: 05-16-00854-CR, 05-16-00855-CR

Judge: Bill Whitehill

Court: In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Faith Johnson  
Larissa Roeder

Defendant's Attorney:

Julie Woods  

Description: Jeffrey Noel Wilcox waived a jury and pleaded guilty to forgery of a government
instrument and credit card abuse. After finding appellant guilty, the trial court assessed
punishment at two years in prison for forgery of a government instrument and two years
confinement in a state jail facility for credit card abuse. In three issues, appellant contends the
trial court’s judgments should be modified to correct several clerical errors. We modify the trial
court’s judgments and affirm as modified.
In his first two issues, appellant asks us to modify the trial court’s judgments to reflect he
entered an open guilty plea to the charges in each indictment. The State agrees the judgments
should be modified as appellant requests. The record shows appellant entered open guilty pleas to the charges in the indictments. We sustain appellant’s first two issues. We modify the section of the judgments entitled “terms
of plea bargain” to state “open.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–
28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet.
ref’d).
In his third issue, appellant asks us to modify the judgment in cause no. 05-16-00855-CR to
correct the name of the prosecuting attorney. The State agrees that the judgment should be modified
as appellant requests and, in a counter-point, asks that the prosecuting attorney’s name in cause no.
05-16-00854-CR also be modified to correct the spelling.
The record shows Jamie Young represented the State during the proceedings. In cause no.
05-16-00855-CR, the judgment incorrectly recites the attorney for the State as “Jamie Fox,” and in
cause no. 05-16-00854-CR, the judgment incorrectly spells the first name of the attorney for the State
as “Jaime.” We sustain appellant’s third issue and the State’s counter-point. We modify the
judgment in each case to show the attorney for the State was “Jamie Young.”

Outcome: