Michael Wayne Johnson v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 3rd District Court of Anderson County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 12th District Court of Appeals » 2006 » Michael Wayne Johnson v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 3rd District Court of Anderson County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 12-06-00183-CR

Case Date: 10/25/2006

Plaintiff: Michael Wayne Johnson

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 3rd District Court of Anderson County

Preview:Opal Renee Ford v. The State of Texas--Appeal from
County Court of Ector County
/**/
11th Court of Appeals
Eastland, Texas
Opinion
Opal Renee Ford
Appellant
Vs. No. 11-03-00355-CR -- Appeal from Ector County
State of Texas
Appellee
Opal Renee Ford violated the terms and conditions of her community supervision, and the trial court revoked her
community supervision. Appellant asserts that the judgment of the trial court is missing required information. We
affirm.
On September 17, 2002, appellant was charged with failing to stop immediately and remain with her vehicle at the
scene of an accident. Appellant pleaded guilty to this offense and was placed on community supervision for one year.
On July 14, 2003, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant s community supervision. On October 14, 2003, the trial
court held a hearing on the motion, revoked appellant s community supervision, and sentenced her to six months
confinement in the county jail.
Appellant argues that the judgment of the trial court does not state an offense against the penal laws of the State of
Texas. Both the order granting community supervision and the order revoking community supervision state that
appellant was guilty of the offense of ACCIDENT INVOLVING DAMAGE TO VEHICLE>=$200 a misdemeanor.
There is no such offense in Texas. It is, however, a Class B misdemeanor to leave the scene of an accident without
giving one s name, address, vehicle registration number, and the name of one s vehicle liability insurer. See TEX.
TRANSP. CODE ANN. 550.022(c)(2) & 550.023(1) (Vernon 1999). The State claimed that the reason for this error
was deficient computer software that limited the amount of space available for entering the tag line of the offense.
Because of this limited space, the words leaving the scene were left off of the plea papers and other documents filed
by the State.
A failure to accurately reflect the charged offense in a judgment is a violation of TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art.
42.01 (Vernon Pamph. Supp. 2004 - 2005). See Article 42.01, section 1(13). As with other errors involving statutory
procedure, however, failure to adhere to the requirements of Article 42.01 does not render a conviction void, but
merely voidable. See Davis v. State, 956 S.W.2d 555, 559 (Tex.Cr.App.1997); Gaston v. State, 63 S.W.3d 893, 897-98
(Tex.App. - Dallas 2001, no pet n). As such, the error may not be challenged in a collateral attack. See Gaston v. State,
supra at 898.
Appellant did not challenge the validity of her conviction until the trial court entered the October 14, 2003, order
revoking her community supervision. The order granting community supervision, which contained the same error as
the order revoking community supervision, was entered several months earlier. By waiting until her community
supervision was revoked before raising this issue, appellant s point of error is an improper collateral attack on the
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/7853.html[8/20/2013 7:24:17 PM]

judgment of the trial court. Appellant, having failed to appeal this matter at the time of her original conviction; waived
her right of review of that conviction and the contention she now urges is not properly before us for review. Hoskins v.
State, 425 S.W.2d 825, 829 (Tex.Cr.App.1967).
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
JIM R. WRIGHT
JUSTICE
April 21, 2005
Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and
Wright, J., and McCall, J.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/7853.html[8/20/2013 7:24:17 PM]

Download 7853.pdf