Judgment Reformation for Incorrect Revocation Pleas | Waleski v. State (2026)

Waleski v. State, 11-25-00097-CR, July 23, 2026.

On appeal from 161st District Court, Ector County, Texas

Synopsis

Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(b), an appellate court may reform a revocation judgment when the written judgment misstates the defendant’s pleas to the alleged supervision violations. In Waleski v. State, the Eleventh Court modified the revocation judgments to reflect what the record actually showed: a plea of true to allegation one and not true to allegations two and three.

Relevance to Family Law

Although Waleski is a criminal revocation case, the opinion is highly relevant to Texas family-law litigators because it reinforces a broader appellate principle that matters in divorce, SAPCR, enforcement, protective-order, and property cases: when the written order does not accurately memorialize what occurred in open court, the record can support appellate correction. Family cases routinely generate post-hearing disputes over whether an order correctly recites stipulations, pleas, waivers, findings, or announced rulings. Waleski is a useful reminder that error-preservation and appellate strategy should include a careful comparison of the reporter’s record against the signed order, particularly in protective-order matters, contempt-related proceedings, and modification or enforcement hearings where inaccurate recitals can affect collateral consequences, credibility findings, or future litigation posture.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Michael Richard Waleski had been placed on community supervision in two felony cases involving family-violence-related offenses: continuous violence against the family and repeated violation of a protective order. The State later filed a second set of motions to revoke his community supervision, alleging three violations in each case: drinking alcohol, entering a 51% establishment, and committing assault.

At the revocation hearing, Waleski entered mixed pleas. He pled true to the first allegation—that he consumed alcohol in violation of his supervision conditions—and not true to the second and third allegations. After hearing the evidence, the trial court found allegations one and two true, revoked community supervision, and imposed confinement. On appeal, appointed counsel filed an Anders brief, and the court independently reviewed the record for arguable error.

That review revealed a narrow but important clerical inaccuracy. Although the reporter’s record showed Waleski pled true only to allegation one and not true to allegations two and three, the written revocation judgments recited that he pled true to all allegations. The appellate court treated that discrepancy as a nonreversible error subject to modification.

Issues Decided

• Whether the appellate court could affirm the revocation judgments while modifying them under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(b) to correct inaccurate recitals about the defendant’s pleas to revocation allegations.
• Whether the written judgments had to be reformed to reflect that Waleski pled true to allegation one and not true to allegations two and three.
• Whether any arguable reversible issue existed as to the revocation itself, given the evidence supporting at least one violation.

Rules Applied

The court relied on several settled revocation and appellate-modification principles:

• Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(b) authorizes a court of appeals to modify the trial court’s judgment and affirm it as modified.
• Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) confirms an appellate court’s authority to reform a judgment so that it “speaks the truth.”
• In revocation proceedings, the State need prove only one violation of a supervision condition by a preponderance of the evidence.
• A plea of true to a revocation allegation, together with supporting testimony, is sufficient to sustain revocation.
• Challenges that could have been raised in a direct appeal from the original order imposing community supervision generally cannot be raised later in an appeal from revocation. The court cited Wiley v. State, 410 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) on that point.

The opinion also cited the usual authorities governing review of revocation decisions, including Cardona v. State, Rickels v. State, Hacker v. State, and related cases addressing standard of review and sufficiency in the revocation context.

Application

The Eleventh Court first addressed the merits of the revocation in the Anders framework. The court concluded there was no arguable reversible issue because the record established at least one supervision violation. Waleski pled true to drinking alcohol, later testified that he had done so, and his probation officer confirmed the same conduct. Because a single proven violation supports revocation, the court had no difficulty concluding the trial court acted within its discretion in revoking supervision.

The more interesting part of the opinion is what the court did next. Rather than treat the misstatement in the judgments as insignificant surplusage, the court compared the written judgments to the actual hearing record and recognized that the recitals were wrong. The discrepancy mattered because the judgments stated that Waleski pled true to all three allegations, when in fact he contested two of them. The court invoked Rule 43.2(b) and Bigley to reform the judgments so that they accurately reflected the pleas entered in open court.

This is the opinion’s practical lesson. Even where the ultimate disposition is plainly correct and affirmance is inevitable, appellate courts remain empowered—and sometimes willing—to correct the written judgment to conform to the record. The court therefore affirmed the revocation judgments as modified, preserving the actual procedural history rather than allowing an inaccurate recital to remain.

Holding

The court held that the revocation orders were supported by legally sufficient proof because Waleski’s plea of true to allegation one, together with the hearing evidence, established at least one violation of community supervision. That was enough to support revocation, regardless of the contested status of the remaining allegations.

The court also held that the written judgments contained nonreversible but correctable error. Because the reporter’s record showed pleas of true to allegation one and not true to allegations two and three, the appellate court modified the judgments under Rule 43.2(b) so the judgments would speak the truth. In all other respects, the judgments were affirmed.

Practical Application

For family-law litigators, Waleski is less about criminal revocation doctrine than about appellate housekeeping with substantive consequences. In family cases, recitals often become weapons. A decree may recite that a party “appeared and announced ready,” “stipulated” to a valuation, “waived” a record, or “agreed” to a parenting term that the reporter’s record does not support. An enforcement order may overstate admissions. A protective order may contain findings broader than those announced on the record. A turnover, sanctions, or temporary-orders ruling may include recitals that later shape modification, enforcement, fee recovery, or credibility disputes.

The strategic takeaway is simple: do not assume that a non-dispositive recital is harmless merely because the underlying judgment will stand. If the written order inaccurately reflects the hearing, seek correction. In some cases that means a motion to correct, modify, or enter judgment nunc pro tunc in the trial court. In others, particularly after plenary power issues arise or where the matter is already on appeal, it means asking the court of appeals to modify the order or judgment to conform to the record.

This matters acutely in family-violence-adjacent litigation. Protective-order proceedings, divorce cases involving family violence findings, and enforcement proceedings often create overlapping criminal and civil consequences. A stray recital about an admission, finding, or plea can influence later custody restrictions, supervised possession arguments, firearm-related consequences, settlement leverage, or collateral credibility attacks. Waleski supports the proposition that precision in written judgments and orders is not cosmetic; it is strategic.

Family lawyers should also note the preservation angle. The appellate court found no reversible issue as to the revocation because one proven ground was enough. The same dynamic appears in family cases where multiple independent grounds support relief. If one basis supports the ruling, correcting the record may be the only realistic appellate win. That narrower relief can still matter immensely for future litigation.

Checklists

Audit the Written Order Against the Record

• Compare the signed order or judgment line by line against the reporter’s record.
• Verify recitals regarding appearances, announcements, stipulations, pleas, waivers, and objections.
• Check whether the written order accurately states the court’s oral findings.
• Confirm that any incorporated agreements match the terms read into the record.
• Identify inaccuracies that may affect future enforcement, modification, collateral proceedings, or settlement leverage.

Preserve Record-Accuracy Complaints Early

• Raise inaccuracies with the trial court promptly after the order is signed.
• Request a corrected order if the error is clerical or memorialization-based.
• File a motion to modify, correct, or reform when appropriate.
• Ensure the reporter’s record clearly captures the disputed statement, admission, or ruling.
• If the case is already on appeal, expressly request appellate modification rather than only reversal.

Use the Narrow Win Strategically

• Ask whether full reversal is unrealistic because another independent ground supports the ruling.
• If so, pursue targeted correction of harmful recitals that could prejudice future proceedings.
• Focus on inaccuracies tied to family violence, conservatorship restrictions, reimbursement claims, property characterization, or fee findings.
• Explain why the recital matters beyond the present appeal.
• Frame the requested relief as necessary to make the order “speak the truth.”

Draft Orders With Appellate Precision

• Avoid generic boilerplate recitals that overstate admissions or agreements.
• Separate pleaded allegations, contested allegations, and findings actually made.
• Use exact language from the hearing when reciting stipulations or pleas.
• Confirm that proposed orders do not convert contested matters into agreed recitals.
• Before submission, test every recital against the actual record.

Protect Clients in Protective-Order and Enforcement Cases

• Scrutinize findings that may later affect custody or possession arguments.
• Review all recitals concerning family violence, threats, intoxication, and weapon possession.
• Make sure contested allegations are not described as admitted.
• Correct inaccurate recitals before they become anchors for later modification or enforcement claims.
• In appellate briefing, emphasize collateral consequences from even “nonreversible” inaccuracies.

Citation

Waleski v. State, Nos. 11-25-00095-CR & 11-25-00097-CR, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Eastland July 23, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~cd5f57cf-5e2c-4423-9bb8-d93c7f2b4805~~