IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT EDGAR CARRASCO, APPELLANT NO. 05-11-00681-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 5th Court of Appeals FILED: 12/28/11 14:00 Lisa Matz, Clerk APPEALED FROM CAUSE NUMBER F10-55057 IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NUMBER 7 OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS; THE HONORABLE MICHAEL R. SNIPES, JUDGE PRESIDING. STATE'S RESPONSE BRIEF CRAIG WATKINS Criminal District Attorney Dallas County, Texas MICHAEL R. CASILLAS, Assistant Criminal District Attorney, Chief Prosecutor - Appellate Division, Oral Argument is requested, 133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB 19 but only if Appellant is Dallas, TX 75207-4399 also requesting argument. (214)653-3600/ FAX (214) 653-3643 State Bar No. 03967500
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...ii SUMMARY OF THE CASE/ STATEMENT OF FACTS...1 SUMMARY OF STATE'S RESPONSIVE ARGUMENTS...................... 1 STATE S REPLY TO APPELLANT S SOLE ISSUE........................... 2 Appellant is entitled to have the trial court s judgment reformed or modified in the way Appellant has requested in his sole issue. LEGAL AUTHORITY...2 APPLICATION...3 CONCLUSION AND PRAYER...4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE...5 i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES PAGES Abron v. State, 997 S.W.2d 281 (Tex. App. Dallas 1998, pet. ref d)....2,4 Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. App. Dallas 1991, pet. ref d)...3,4 Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993)........................ 2,4 Nolan v. State, 39 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. App. st Houston [1 Dist.] 2001, no pet.).... 3,4 ARTICLES, CODES, RULES and CONSTITUTIONS: Tex. Pen. Code 19.02...3 Tex. Pen. Code 19.04... 3,4 Tex. R. App. P. 38.2(a)(1)(B)...1 Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b)... 2,4 ii
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: The instant brief in response to the brief of Appellant, Edgar Carrasco, is filed on behalf of Craig Watkins, the Criminal District Attorney of Dallas County, Texas. SUMMARY OF THE CASE/STATEMENT OF FACTS Appellant s Brief admits that Appellant was originally charged via indictment with having committed the offense of murder and that the trial court granted the State s motion to reduce the charge to manslaughter. (Appellant s Brief at pp. 1-2). Appellant s Brief also admits that Appellant pled guilty to the manslaughter charge without having any plea bargain agreement regarding the punishment that would be assessed and that the trial court sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for a period of 20 years after having heard all the evidence. (Id.). Since Appellant does not dispute the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court s judgment of conviction and does not attack the sentence imposed by the trial court, the State has no disagreement with Appellant s summary of the case or Appellant s discussion of the historical facts of the case. Accordingly, the State s Response Brief offers no further discussion regarding the nature of the case and/or the historical facts thereof. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.2(a)(1)(B). 1
SUMMARY OF STATE'S RESPONSIVE ARGUMENTS State's Reply to Appellant's Sole Issue: Appellant is entitled to have the trial court s judgment reformed or modified in the way Appellant has requested in his sole issue. STATE'S REPLY TO APPELLANT S SOLE ISSUE: Appellant s contention: In his sole issue, Appellant contends that the trial court s judgment must be reformed or modified regarding the statute Appellant violated by his having committed the crime of manslaughter. (Appellant s Brief at pp. iii, 1-4). State s response: Appellant is entitled to have the trial court s judgment reformed or modified in the way Appellant has requested in his sole issue. LEGAL AUTHORITY When the record of the proceedings in the trial court contains the information necessary to ascertain that the trial court s judgment is incorrect as well as that necessary to permit an accurate correction to be made to the trial court s judgment, the intermediate appellate court has the authority to order that the trial court s judgment be reformed. Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Abron v. State, 997 S.W.2d 281, 282 (Tex. App. Dallas 1998, pet. ref d). In short, An appellate court has the power to correct and reform a trial court judgment to make the record speak 2
the truth when it has the necessary data and information to do so, or make any appropriate order as the law and nature of the case may require. Nolan v. State, 39 S.W.3d 697, 698 st (Tex. App. Houston [1 Dist.] 2001, no pet.), quoting Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex. App. Dallas 1991, pet. ref d). APPLICATION In his sole issue, Appellant contends that the trial court s judgment must be reformed or modified regarding the statute Appellant violated by his having committed the crime of manslaughter. (Appellant s Brief at pp. iii, 1-4). Review of the trial court s judgment reveals that the judgment contains the entry 19.02 Penal Code beside the heading Statute for Offense. (CR: 27-28). The crime of murder is defined in penal code section 19.02. See Tex. Pen. Code 19.02. While Appellant was originally charged with murder, the record is undisputed regarding not only how the trial court expressly granted the State s motion to reduce the crime to manslaughter, but also how Appellant entered his open plea in regard to the crime of manslaughter. (CR: 5, 7, 20; RR-2: 1-6; RR-3: 6; RR-4: 36, 58, 61-62, 65). The crime of manslaughter is defined in penal code section 19.04. See Tex. Pen. Code 19.04. In light of all the aforementioned undisputed facts reflected in the appellate record, Appellant is correct in his assertion that the trial court s judgment in this case, by reflecting that 19.02 Penal Code constituted the Statute for [the] Offense, incorrectly reflects the statute Appellant violated by committing the crime of manslaughter. (CR: 27-28). Likewise, 3
Appellant is correct in his assertion that the trial court s judgment in his case should be reformed or modified to reflect that Appellant, by having committed the offense of manslaughter, had violated Tex. Pen. Code 19.04. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley, 865 S.W.2d at 27; Abron, 997 S.W.2d at 282. Stated differently, the trial court s judgment should be reformed in the way Appellant has requested so as to reflect the truth. See Nolan, 39 S.W.3d at 698; Asberry, 813 S.W.2d at 529. For all the aforementioned reasons, Appellant should be accorded the relief he has requested in his sole issue. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER Appellant suffered no reversible error. The State prays that this Court will reform the trial court s judgment in the way Appellant has requested and affirm the trial court s judgment as modified or reformed. Respectfully submitted, CRAIG WATKINS Criminal District Attorney Dallas County, Texas MICHAEL R. CASILLAS, Assistant Criminal District Attorney, Chief Prosecutor - Appellate Division 133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB 19 Dallas, Texas 75207-4399 (214) 653-3600/ FAX (214) 653-3643 State Bar No. 03967500 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A true copy of the State's Response Brief have been delivered by hand to the office of opposing counsel, the Hon. Julie Woods, Assistant Public Defender, Office of the Dallas County Public Defender, 133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB2, Dallas, Texas 75207, and an electronically-formatted version of said State s Response Brief has been e-mailed to the Hon. th Julie Woods, no later than the 30 day of December 2011. MICHAEL R. CASILLAS 5