Russeau v. State
| Docket Number | 12-22-00269-CR |
| Decision Date | 08 June 2023 |
| Parties | RICKEY BERNARD RUSSEAU, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
DO NOT PUBLISH
Appeal from the 7th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct No. 007-1778-21)
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
Greg Neeley Justice.
Appellant Ricky Bernard Russeau, appeals from his conviction and sentencing for possession of a controlled substance. In one issue, Appellant argues that the judgment in this case is void because it omits a jury finding on one of the State's enhancement allegations. We affirm as modified.
On October 21, 2021, Appellant was indicted for the offense of possession of a controlled substance, less than one gram. Appellant initially pleaded "not guilty," and this matter proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found Appellant "guilty" of the charged offense. At the punishment phase, the State alleged three enhancements: (1) in 1987 Appellant was convicted of felony murder and the judgment of conviction contained an affirmative finding of the use and/or exhibition of a deadly weapon, (2) in 1978, Appellant was finally convicted of the felony offense of forgery, and (3) in 1982, Appellant was finally convicted of the felony offense of robbery. Appellant pleaded "not true" to these enhancement allegations, but the jury returned a finding of "true" to all three and assessed punishment of life imprisonment.[1] This appeal followed.
Appellant argues that because the judgment of conviction omits the jury's finding as to one of three enhancements alleged by the State, it does not support the imposition of a life sentence and is therefore void. The State argues, in its sole counterpoint, that the jury's verdict as rendered supports the imposition of a life sentence, and that we have the authority to modify the judgment to include the jury's findings.
An appellate court has the duty to correct and modify a trial court judgment "to make the record speak the truth when it has the necessary data and information to do so." Jackson v. State, 288 S.W.3d 60, 64 (Tex App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. ref'd) (citing Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd)); Tex.R.App.P. 43.2(c). Our authority to modify a trial court's judgment is not restricted to the correction of clerical errors. Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Morris, 496 S.W.3d at 836. But the record must supply us with the information necessary to show both that a modification is warranted and the particular modification that is warranted. Van Flowers v. State, 629 S.W.3d 707, 712 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2021, no pet.). The purpose of such an order is to correctly reflect from the records of the court the judgment actually "rendered" but which for some reason was not "entered" at the proper time. Silva v. State, 989 S.W.2d 64, 66 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1998, pet. ref'd). Specifically, an appellate court may reform a judgment to reflect an affirmative finding that was made by a jury but not entered by the trial court. McCallum v. State, 311 S.W.3d 9, 19 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2010, no pet.); see also Van Flowers, 629 S.W.3d at 711.
In this case, the trial court's written judgment of conviction does not reflect the jury's finding on the third enhancement paragraph, alleging Appellant's prior conviction for robbery. However, the record, particularly the punishment phase verdict form and the transcript of the proceedings, makes clear that the jury found each of the enhancement paragraphs "true." The omission of this affirmative finding from the written judgment is unrelated to judicial reasoning, and the record provides us with the necessary proof of the findings actually rendered by the jury. Therefore, we may reform the trial court's judgment to "make the record speak the truth." Jackson, 288 S.W.3d at 64. And as reformed to include all the enhancement findings, the trial court's judgment supports the jury's imposition of a life sentence in this case. Kahookele, 604 S.W.3d at 211-12.
We overrule Appellant's sole issue in part as to his contention that the judgment is void and we sustain his issue in part to the extent he seeks reformation of the judgment. We likewise sustain the State's counterpoint.
Having sustained Appellant's sole issue in part and having sustained the State's counterpoint, we modify the trial court's judgment of conviction to add, below the plea and findings on the 2nd enhancement paragraph:
We affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified.
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial