Rule 43.2(b) Permits Adjudication-Plea Correction | Artz v. State (2026)

Artz v. State, 08-25-00124-CR, October 14, 2026.

On appeal from 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Synopsis

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(b) permits an appellate court to correct a judgment that inaccurately records a party’s pleas when the appellate record supplies the information necessary to make the judgment speak the truth. Because the adjudication judgment incorrectly stated that Artz pleaded “true” to every alleged community-supervision violation, the court corrected the plea recitals and affirmed the judgment as modified.

Relevance to Family Law

Although Artz arose from a criminal adjudication proceeding, Rule 43.2(b) authorizes modification of trial-court judgments across Texas appellate practice. The same principle can apply when a divorce decree, SAPCR order, enforcement judgment, or property-division order inaccurately memorializes an announcement, stipulation, waiver, finding, or ruling that is established by the record.

For family-law litigators, the important distinction is between a clerical misstatement and a substantive judicial error. An appellate court may correct an inaccurate recital when the reporter’s record, written stipulation, docket materials, or other proper record evidence conclusively shows what occurred. Rule 43.2(b), however, is not a vehicle for supplying an omitted discretionary ruling, resolving an ambiguity, or changing the substance of the trial court’s decision. Counsel should therefore create a clear record at rendition and compare the signed order against that record immediately.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Thomas Blake Artz pleaded guilty to a family-violence offense and was placed on deferred-adjudication community supervision for ten years. After the State later alleged seven violations of his supervision conditions, Artz entered different pleas to the allegations at the adjudication hearing.

Artz pleaded “not true” to allegations one and five. He pleaded “true” to allegations two, four, six, and seven. As to allegation three, he pleaded “true” only to the portion alleging marijuana use. After receiving evidence, the trial court found all seven allegations proven by a preponderance of the evidence, adjudicated Artz guilty, and sentenced him to six years’ confinement.

The written judgment did not accurately reflect those pleas. Instead, it stated that Artz pleaded “true” to all allegations in the State’s motion to adjudicate.

Appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding that no arguable error affected the adjudication decision or sentence. Counsel nevertheless identified the incorrect plea recital as a clerical error and requested modification of the judgment. Artz independently advised the court that he had found no arguable issue concerning the adjudication or sentence.

Issues Decided

• Whether the appellate court could use Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(b) to correct the judgment’s inaccurate recital of Artz’s pleas.

• Whether the record contained sufficiently definite information for the appellate court to identify the pleas actually entered as to each alleged violation.

• Whether the clerical mistake required reversal or instead permitted affirmance of the judgment as modified.

• Whether the Anders brief and the appellate court’s independent review disclosed any other arguably meritorious ground for appeal.

Rules Applied

• Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(b): A court of appeals may “modify the trial court’s judgment and affirm it as modified.”

• Authority to make the judgment speak the truth: When the appellate record contains the necessary information, a court of appeals may correct an erroneous judgment recital so that the written judgment accurately reflects the proceedings below.

• Mason v. State: The court relied on its prior use of Rule 43.2(b) to modify a judgment in an Anders appeal when the record established the necessary correction. Mason v. State, No. 08-23-00257-CR, 2024 WL 2983908, at *2 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2024, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

• Anders v. California: When appointed counsel concludes that an appeal presents no nonfrivolous ground, counsel must submit a brief providing a professional evaluation of the record, and the appellate court must independently review the record.

• In re Schulman: A Texas Anders brief must include appropriate references to the record, procedural history, and pertinent legal authorities even when counsel identifies no arguable issue.

• Kelly v. State: Counsel must provide the appellant with the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and inform the appellant of the procedures for obtaining the record and filing a pro se response.

• Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 41.3: Because the case was transferred from another appellate district for docket equalization, the Eighth Court of Appeals was required to apply Fourth Court of Appeals precedent if it conflicted with Eighth Court precedent.

Application

The reporter’s record established that the judgment’s blanket recital of “TRUE” was inaccurate. Artz had not pleaded true to every allegation. He expressly pleaded not true to allegations one and five, pleaded true to allegations two, four, six, and seven, and entered only a limited plea of true to the marijuana-use component of allegation three.

That discrepancy did not undermine the trial court’s adjudication decision. The trial court received evidence and independently found all seven alleged violations proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Thus, the error concerned the judgment’s memorialization of Artz’s pleas, not the sufficiency of the findings supporting adjudication or the exercise of sentencing discretion.

Because the appellate record conclusively disclosed the pleas actually entered, no new fact-finding was necessary. The court could identify the precise language needed to correct the judgment. It therefore deleted the general “TRUE” recital and substituted language reflecting the allegation-specific pleas shown in the record.

The court also examined counsel’s Anders brief and independently reviewed the record. It found no arguable ground for challenging either the adjudication of guilt or the six-year sentence. Accordingly, the clerical error justified modification but not reversal.

Holding

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(b) authorized the court of appeals to modify the judgment because the appellate record provided the information necessary to make the judgment accurately reflect Artz’s pleas.

The court modified the plea section to state that Artz pleaded “not true” to allegations one and five, “true” to allegations two, four, six, and seven, and “true” only to the marijuana-use portion of allegation three.

The inaccurate recital did not require reversal. After correcting the clerical error and completing its independent Anders review, the court affirmed the judgment as modified and granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Practical Application

Family-law practitioners should treat Artz as a record-accuracy case rather than as authority for substantive appellate revision. Rule 43.2(b) is most useful when the signed order incorrectly transcribes a matter conclusively established elsewhere in the appellate record.

In a divorce trial, for example, a decree may incorrectly identify which party was awarded a particular account or may misstate the account number even though the oral rendition and admitted property spreadsheet are unequivocal. If the discrepancy is genuinely clerical and the correct disposition is conclusively established, modification and affirmance may be available. If the trial court never rendered a division of that asset, however, an appellate court generally cannot use Rule 43.2(b) to exercise the trial court’s discretion in the first instance.

In custody litigation, a final order might inaccurately recite that both parties agreed to a geographic restriction, drug-testing protocol, or possession provision. Counsel should compare that recital against the parties’ actual stipulations and the trial court’s rendition. An inaccurate recital of agreement can affect later modification or enforcement proceedings, particularly where a party argues that a provision was contractual or entered by consent.

In child-support and enforcement proceedings, precision concerning pleas, admissions, arrearage stipulations, and contempt findings is critical. A written order should not convert a limited admission into a blanket admission. Artz illustrates that each allegation and each response should be separately stated when the party admits only part of an allegation or contests some grounds while conceding others.

Property and fee judgments require similar attention. A decree that inaccurately describes an amount as agreed, stipulated, or undisputed may have consequences for appeal, enforcement, and collateral litigation. Appellate counsel should not overlook such an error merely because it does not produce reversible error. A corrected judgment may still matter substantially to the client.

Finally, counsel should not assume that every discrepancy is correctable on appeal. When the record is ambiguous, when multiple oral statements conflict, or when the requested correction would alter the trial court’s substantive decision, the issue may require a motion to modify, a request for clarification, a judgment nunc pro tunc if truly clerical, or reversal and remand if the error is judicial and properly preserved.

Checklists

Before the Final Order Is Signed

• Compare every proposed recital of appearance, waiver, stipulation, admission, and agreement against the reporter’s record.

• Identify whether each allegation or requested item of relief was admitted, denied, partially admitted, or left unanswered.

• Separate compound allegations when the client admits only one component.

• Confirm that the proposed order tracks the trial court’s actual rendition rather than counsel’s interpretation of it.

• Verify names, dates, dollar amounts, account identifiers, legal descriptions, possession terms, and geographic restrictions.

• Avoid stating that a provision was “agreed” unless the record establishes actual consent to that specific provision.

• Request clarification on the record if the trial court’s oral ruling is incomplete or internally inconsistent.

Creating a Record for Possible Appellate Modification

• Obtain a clear oral ruling on each contested issue.

• Offer written stipulations and demonstrative schedules into evidence when they are intended to define the judgment’s terms.

• Ask the court to identify incorporated exhibits with specificity.

• Ensure that partial admissions and qualified agreements are stated precisely.

• Correct misstatements immediately during rendition or before the hearing concludes.

• Preserve the reporter’s record of any objection to an inaccurate characterization of the party’s position.

• Make certain that the clerk’s record contains the operative pleadings, stipulations, proposed orders, and signed judgment.

Reviewing a Divorce Decree or SAPCR Order

• Compare the conservatorship designations against the court’s rendition.

• Verify each possession provision, exchange location, notice deadline, and holiday allocation.

• Confirm the amount, commencement date, and duration of child support and medical support.

• Check whether geographic restrictions and exceptions match the ruling.

• Compare the property division against admitted inventories, tracing schedules, and the court’s oral pronouncement.

• Verify debt allocation, reimbursement awards, equalization payments, and transfer deadlines.

• Review attorney’s-fee awards for amount, basis, conditional appellate fees, and the party against whom judgment was rendered.

• Confirm that findings described as agreed or stipulated were actually agreed or stipulated.

Addressing an Inaccurate Signed Order

• Determine whether the discrepancy is clerical or reflects a substantive judicial decision.

• Identify the exact portion of the record establishing the correct language.

• Consider a timely motion to modify, correct, or reform the judgment.

• Evaluate whether a judgment nunc pro tunc is procedurally available for a genuinely clerical error.

• Preserve any substantive complaint through an appropriate objection, post-judgment motion, or request for findings.

• Do not rely solely on an appellate court’s power to modify when the record is incomplete or ambiguous.

• State the requested correction precisely rather than asking generally for the judgment to be “fixed.”

Preparing the Appellate Brief

• Quote the inaccurate language from the signed judgment.

• Cite the precise reporter’s-record or clerk’s-record passages establishing what actually occurred.

• Explain why the discrepancy is clerical rather than judicial.

• Provide the exact replacement language requested.

• Cite Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(b).

• Explain whether the correction affects any substantive appellate issue.

• Request affirmance as modified when correction, rather than reversal, provides the appropriate remedy.

• Account for Rule 41.3 if the appeal was transferred between appellate districts.

Citation

Artz v. State, No. 08-25-00124-CR, slip op. (Tex. App.—El Paso Oct. 14, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion in Artz v. State.

~~be7bb431-8416-4069-afe5-38ba78bbb07a~~