Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto
Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Jason Britt Redden v. The State of Texas
Case Number: 03-18-00353-CR
Judge: Thomas J. Baker
Court: TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
Plaintiff's Attorney: The Honorable Stacey M. Soule
Defendant's Attorney: Ms. Karen E. Oprea
Jason Britt Redden was charged with assault family violence for allegedly assaulting
his girlfriend, and the indictment also alleged that Redden had previously been convicted of a
similar offense. See Tex. Penal Code ß 22.01(a)-(b). After being charged, Redden entered into a
plea-bargain agreement with the State in which he agreed to plead guilty to the charged offense in
exchange for the State recommending that his adjudication of guilt be deferred, and that he be
placed on community supervision. The district court accepted Reddenís plea, deferred sentencing,
and placed him on deferred-adjudication community supervision. A little over a year later, the
State moved to revoke Reddenís community supervision and adjudicate his guilt. At the end of
the adjudication hearing, the district court found three of the Stateís allegations to be true, revoked
Reddenís community supervision, adjudicated his guilt, and sentenced him to ten yearsí imprisonment.
In one issue on appeal, Redden asserts that the district courtís judgment adjudicating his guilt
contains a clerical error and asks this Court to modify the judgment to correct the alleged error.
We will modify the district courtís judgment adjudicating Reddenís guilt and affirm the judgment
During the revocation hearing, Redden pleaded not true to all of the Stateís revocation
allegations. However, as Redden notes, the district courtís judgment states that Redden pleaded
true to all of the revocation allegations. In light of this disparity, Redden argues that the district
courtís judgment should be reformed to correct the clerical error, and the State agrees.
This Court has the authority to modify incorrect judgments when it has the information
necessary to do so. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1993); see also Parker v. State, No. 03-12-00540-CR, 2013 WL 2631621, at *1 (Tex.
App.óAustin June 7, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (modifying trial
courtís judgment revoking defendantís community supervision to reflect that defendant pleaded
not true to revocation allegation). Accordingly, we sustain Reddenís issue on appeal and modify
the judgment adjudicating Reddenís guilt to reflect that Redden pleaded not true to the Stateís
Outcome: Having sustained Reddenís issue on appeal, we modify the district courtís judgment