OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Osborne, and Partida-Kipness Opinion by Justice Osborne Tyran Darnell Shumate appeals the trial court’s “judgment adjudicating [him] guilt[y]” of “ aggravated sexual assault of a child.” After a hearing on the State’s motion to revoke his community supervision, the trial court found that appellant violated the conditions of his community supervision and sentenced him to five years of imprisonment. Appellant raises six issues arguing the trial court’s judgment should be modified as follows: (1) to reflect the correct offense; (2) to state the correct statute for the offense; (3) to reflect the correct degree of the offense; (4) to correctly reflect that there was no plea bargain in this case; (5) to reflect that he is required to register as a sex offender; and (6) to correctly reflect that his community supervision was revoked. The State agrees that this Court should modify the judgment and raises a cross issue requesting that we also modify the judgment to accurately reflect the trial court’s findings that appellant violated the conditions of his community supervision and replace the trial court’s judgment with the correct form for judgments revoking community supervision. The trial court’s judgment is reversed and remanded with instructions for the trial court to enter a corrected judgment consistent with this opinion. I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant was indicted for the offense of first-degree aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than fourteen years of age. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021(a)(1)(B)(i), (a)(2)(B). Later, the State filed a written motion to amend the indictment, abandoning the first-degree felony allegation of aggravated sexual assault of a child under fourteen years of age and replacing it with the lesser-included second-degree felony offense of sexual assault of a child younger than seventeen years of age, which the trial court granted.[1] See PENAL § 22.011(a)(2)(A), (c)(1). However, the text of the actual indictment was not changed. Shumate v. State, No. 05-17-00701-CR, 2018 WL 3120856, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 26, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Appellant pleaded not guilty, and the State proceeded to trial on the lesser charge. Id. at 2. The jury found appellant guilty of sexual assault and assessed his punishment at five years of imprisonment. The trial court suspended appellant’s sentence and ordered that he be placed on community supervision for ten years. Appellant appealed the trial court’s judgment to this Court, claiming that the trial court’s charge to the jury was erroneous and that he was egregiously harmed because the indictment, although amended orally, was never actually amended. Id. at *1. This Court modified the trial court’s judgment as follows: the section of the judgment entitled “Offense for which Defendant Convicted” was modified to show the offense was “Sexual Assault of a Child”; the section of the judgment entitled “Statute for Offense” was modified to show the correct statute is “22.011 Penal Code”; and the section of the judgment entitled “Degree of Offense” was modified to show the degree of the offense was “2nd Degree Felony.” Id. at *5. As modified, the trial court’s judgment was affirmed.[2] Id. The State filed a motion seeking to revoke appellant’s community supervision, alleging he violated several conditions of his community supervision. Appellant pleaded true to the allegations. The trial court accepted appellant’s plea of true, revoked his community supervision, and sentenced him to five years of imprisonment. The trial court signed a “Judgment Adjudicating Guilt” that: states appellant was convicted of “aggravated sexual assault of child” under “22.021 Penal Code,” which is a “1st Degree Felony,” states the terms of his plea bargain were “5 years penitentiary, no fine,” does not check the box indicating he is required to register as a sex offender, and does not reflect that appellant’s community supervision was revoked or that he violated the conditions of his community supervision. I. CORRECTION OF THE JUDGMENT In issues one through six, appellant argues the trial court’s judgment should be modified: (1) to reflect the correct offense; (2) to state the correct statute for the offense; (3) to reflect the correct degree of the offense; (4) to correctly reflect that there was no plea bargain in this case; (5) to reflect that he is required to register as a sex offender; and (6) to correctly reflect that his community supervision was revoked. The State agrees. In the State’s cross issue, it requests that an additional portion of the trial court’s judgment be modified and alleges the trial court failed to use the correct judgment form. After reviewing the record in this case, we conclude that appellant’s and the State’s arguments are well founded. An appellate court has the authority to modify an incorrect judgment to make the record speak the truth when it has the necessary information 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); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d) (en banc). However, it is concerning that this is not the first time we have addressed the same errors that the parties raise in this appeal. See Shumate, 2018 WL 3120856, at *5. And, it is troubling that the trial court has signed another judgment that does not reflect the modifications made by this Court. Errors occur, and that is why our system includes a remedy for addressing them, but the repetition of those errors, resulting in the need for additional expenditures and repetitious appellate review, is vexing. As a criminal appeal, this case involves the restriction of a person’s liberty, and, here specifically, because this is a sexual assault case, the need to accurately reflect when a person is required to register as a sex offender is a matter of public concern. These are not trivial matters. Further, the State contends that the incorrect judgment form was used in this case. It requests that we replace the trial court’s judgment with the correct form for judgments revoking community supervision. This Court has the power to modify the trial court’s judgment and affirm it as modified, to reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to correct its final judgment, and to reverse the trial court’s judgment and render the judgment the trial court should have rendered. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2. While simply replacing the judgment form used by the trial court may appear to be the simplest solution, this Court does not replace forms.[3] However, nothing in this opinion should be construed to suggest that the trial court cannot take advantage of that solution when complying with our opinion and judgment. Issues one through six are decided in appellant’s favor, and the cross issue is decided in the State’s favor. In light of the procedural history of this case, we believe the better course is to remand this case to the trial court with instructions to correct the judgment instead of our modifying the judgment. Further, based on the issues highlighted by this appeal, it may be prudent for appellate courts to review their current practice of modifying incorrect judgments in criminal cases. III. CONCLUSION We reverse the trial court’s “Judgment Adjudicating Guilt” and remand the case to the trial court for the sole purpose of signing and entering a corrected judgment revoking appellant’s community supervision that contains all the statutorily mandated information and complies with this Court’s opinion as follows: The title of the judgment which states “Judgment Adjudicating Guilt” should be corrected to state “Judgment Revoking Community Supervision”; the section of the judgment that states “Statute for Offense: 22.021 Penal Code” should be corrected to state “Statute for Offense: 22.011 Penal Code”; the section of the judgment that states “Offense for which defendant Convicted: Aggravated Sexual Assault Child” should be corrected to state “Offense for which defendant Convicted: Sexual Assault of a Child younger than 17 years of age”[4]; the section of the judgment that states “Degree of Offense: 1st Degree Felony” should be corrected to state “Degree of Offense: 2nd Degree Felony”; the section of the judgment that states “Terms of Plea Bargain (if any): 5 years penitentiary, no fine” should be corrected to state “None”; the section of the judgment that does not check the box showing appellant is required to register as a sex offender should be corrected to reflect that he is required to register as a sex offender; the judgment should be corrected to reflect that the trial court granted the State’s motion to revoke appellant’s community supervision and found that appellant violated conditions B, H, J, K, L, N, and Y of his community supervision; and the judgment should be corrected to reflect the trial court’s previous order suspending the imposition of appellant’s sentence of confinement and placing him on community supervision is revoked. /Leslie Osborne// LESLIE OSBORNE JUSTICE
