1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-13-00328-CR

NO. 09-13-00329-CR

____________________

CARLOS HERNANDEZ CAMACHO

A/K/A EDGARDO ALVARADO-CAMACHO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 258th District Court 

San Jacinto County, Texas

Trial Cause Nos. 11031, 11032

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

In these appeals, Carlos Hernandez Camacho1 complains the trial court, 

during his punishment hearing, erred by considering a presentence investigation 

report that included “entries alleging an arrest [in 1996] for driving while 

intoxicated, and an arrest [in 2000] for criminal trespass[.]” According to 

 1

The record reflects that Camacho is also known as Edgardo AlvaradoCamacho.
2

Camacho, the report did not show that he had been convicted of the 1996 and 2000

offenses. Based on the State’s lack of proof that he had committed these two 

offenses beyond a reasonable doubt, Camacho argues the trial court erred by 

considering the information regarding these arrests at his sentencing hearing. At 

the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Camacho to a 

twenty-year sentence on both the aggravated assault case, trial cause number 

11031, and on the manslaughter case, trial cause number 11032. Because the trial 

court did not abuse its discretion by considering the arrests at issue, we affirm the 

trial court’s judgments. 

Background

Camacho pled guilty to an information charging him with aggravated assault 

causing serious bodily injury and an information charging him with manslaughter.

See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 19.04, 22.02 (West 2011). Camacho’s plea in each 

case subjected him to a potential sentence on each case of not more than twenty 

years in prison. See id. § 12.33(a) (West 2011). After the trial court found 

Camacho guilty, it scheduled a sentencing hearing and requested that the State 

conduct a presentence investigation. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts. 37.07 § 

3(d), 42.12 § 9(a) (West Supp. 2014). 
3

During the sentencing hearing, Camacho objected to the trial court 

considering the information in the report regarding his 1996 and 2000 arrests. The 

court overruled Camacho’s objections and considered the report, which indicates 

that no records were located showing how Camacho’s 1996 and 2000 arrests were 

resolved. According to Camacho, these two arrests should not have been 

considered by the trial court during the sentencing hearing because the evidence 

was not sufficient to allow the trial court to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, 

that Camacho had actually committed these offenses. 

Trial courts are authorized to obtain a presentence investigation before

sentencing a defendant in a felony case. See id. art. 37.07 § 3(d). The trial court is 

statutorily authorized to then consider the presentence report during the sentencing 

hearing. Id. “By statute, the Legislature has directed what is to be included in a 

PSI, and the statute does not limit the criminal history to final convictions.” 

Stringer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 42, 48 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). The trial court shall 

allow the defendant to review and comment on the report, and, with leave of the 

court, proffer evidence as to any factual inaccuracies in the report. See Tex. Code 

Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12 § 9(d), (e) (West Supp. 2014); Stringer, 309 S.W.3d at 

48 (“The PSI statute also provides the defendant the opportunity to present 

contrary evidence.”).
4

In Smith v. State, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that a trial court may 

consider evidence of extraneous misconduct in assessing punishment when that 

information is included in a presentence investigation, even where the defendant 

was not shown beyond reasonable doubt to have actually committed the 

misconduct. 227 S.W.3d 753, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Based on the holding in 

Smith, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by considering the 

information concerning Camacho’s arrests. See id. We overrule the sole issue 

raised by Camacho in his appeals. 

Nevertheless, the judgment in cause number 11031, Camacho’s aggravated 

assault case, contains a clerical error. The judgment the trial court rendered in this 

case refers to section 19.04 of the Penal Code, a statute that makes it a crime to 

commit manslaughter. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.04. But, in cause number 

11031, Camacho pled guilty and was convicted of aggravated assault, a conviction 

based on section 22.02 of the Penal Code. See id. § 22.02.

An appeals court may modify a judgment to correct clerical errors. Bigley v. 

State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). We correct the clerical error 

in the judgment in cause number 11031 by replacing the reference in the judgment 

to section 19.04 of the Penal Code with a reference to section 22.02 of the Penal 
5

Code. Therefore, the trial court’s judgment in cause number 11031 is affirmed as 

modified. The trial court’s judgment in cause number 11032 is affirmed.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED; AFFIRMED.

 

 

_________________________

 HOLLIS HORTON

 Justice

Submitted on May 21, 2014

Opinion Delivered September 10, 2014 

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger, and Horton, JJ.