Affirmed as Modified a nd Opinion Filed May 17, 2016 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-15-01157-CR No. 05-15-01158-CR DADRIAN NAKIA AYERS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Crimin al District Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F13-1352291-J and F12-72313-J 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Bridges, and Justice Lang Opinion by Chief Justice Wright Appellant Dadrian Nakia Ayers pleaded guilt y to charges of robbery and aggravated assault involving family violence and a d eadly weapon. Appellant received deferred adjudication community supervision in each case fo r four years. Approxim ately two years later, the State moved to revoke appella nt’s probation and to proceed w ith adjudication of his guilt, alleging he had violated conditi ons of his community supervisi on by exhibiting a firearm during the commission of assaults upon Cedric Washingt on and Shateera Washington and by failing to pay certain required fees. Following a hearing, the trial court found that appellant had violated his community supervision and sentenced him to tw enty years’ incarcerat ion. In this Court, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by overruling ap pellant’s objection to a series of photographs of his tatt oos. Appellant also as ks us to modify both judgments to reflect–2– the trial court’s ruling on his probation violatio n. We agree the judgments should be modified, but—as modified—we affirm th e trial court’s judgment. Admission of the Photographs In his first issue, appellant contends the tr ial court abused its di scretion by overruling his relevance objection to nine photographs, which depicted appellant’s ta ttoos. The photographs were offered during the sentenci ng hearing while Lekira Green, the mother of appellant’s children, was on the stand. The State asked Gree n what each of the photographs pictured. She identified checkmarks and dates on appellant’s wris ts reflecting the birth a nd death of their first child and a “D with flames” on his chest reflecti ng that they were from Dallas. Green also identified tattoos of the words “lunatic,” “life, ” and “trap,” and she desc ribed tattoos of money signs, a face, and a house, but she testified she di d not know what any of t hose words or pictures meant. Following this discussion of the photog raphs, the following ex change took place: Q. [by the Prosecutor] All right. Du ring the time you’ve known him have you known him to be associated with the Blood street gang? A. [by witness Green] No, sir. Q. And, so, it’s your testimony that you have no knowledge that any of these tattoos are related to gang activity? A. No, he’s not in a gang. Appellant argues the State offered the photographs solely to insinuate that he was in a gang without any competent evidence of such gang affiliation. 1 The decision to admit or exclude photographic evidence is within the discretion of the trial court. Prible v. State , 175 S.W.3d 724, 734 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). And as to the scope of relevant evidence during the sentencing hearing, evidence is relevant to a punishment de termination if it will assi st the fact finder in

1 The State argues appellant did not preserve this error b ecause he did not object to the questions posed by the State after discussion of the photographs. Appellant timely objected to th e photographs and preserved error as to them. We agree he did not preserve error as to the subsequent questions asking direc tly about his gang affiliation.–3– deciding the appropriate sent ence in a particular case. Sims v. State , 273 S.W.3d 291, 295 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). At the punishment phase, th e factfinder is concerned with evaluating a defendant’s background and character. Jessop v. State , 368 S.W.3d 653, 693 (Tex. App.— Austin 2012, no pet.). “A defendant’s choice of tattoos, like his persona l drawings, can reflect his character and/or demonstr ate a motive for his crime.” Conner v. State , 67 S.W.3d 192, 201 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Accordingly, a number of courts have admitted photographs of tattoos as evidence of character, background, or motive. See id. We cannot say the tr ial court abused its discretion in admitting the photographs of appellant’s tattoos in this case. Moreover, Green responded to questions concerning the tatt oos, but she could attribute meaning to them in only two instances: she tes tified one set of tattoos memorialized the couple’s deceased child and one celebrated their hometow n. The State did not succeed in eliciting any testimony harmful to appellant from the photogr aphs. Accordingly, even if admitting the photographs was error, the erro r would not be reversible. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 44.2(b). We overrule appellant’s first issue. Modification of the Judgments In his second and third issues, appellant asserts that the trial court’s judgments inaccurately assert that he violated three conditi ons of his probation: condition (a), commission of a new offense; condition (j), fa ilure to pay community service fe e; and condition (n), failure to pay urinalysis fee. Both judgm ents recite that appellant “vio lated the terms and conditions of community supervision as set out in the State’ s Amended Motion to Adjudicate Guilt,” and the attached amended motion asserts that appellant viol ated conditions (a), (j), and (n). The trial court, however, found “specifically that the defenda nt violated Condition A in both these cases.” The State agrees with appellant that the judgments should be m odified to limit the trial court’s ruling to condition (a).–4– This Court has the power to modify the tr ial court’s judgment when we have the necessary information to do so. See T EX
. R. A PP
. 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). We modify both judgm ents to reflect that while on community supervision, appellant violated condition (a) of the terms and condi tions of his deferred adjudication community supervision. 2 We sustain appellant’s second a nd third issues to this extent. Conclusion We modify the trial court’s judgments to re flect that the court f ound appellant violated condition (a) of the terms and conditions of hi s deferred adjudication community supervision. As modified, we a ffirm both judgments.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 151157F.U05

2 Appellant also asks us to modify the judgments to reflect that the trial court found conditions (j) and (n) to be not true in e ach case. The record does not support this co nclusion: the trial court made no findings on those two conditions. /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–5– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
DADRIAN NAKIA AYERS, Appellant
No. 05-15-01157-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F13-52291-J. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright, Justices Bridges and Lang participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this da te, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows in the recitation of the court’s findings: (5) While on community supervision, Defenda nt violated the terms and conditions of community supervision as set ou t in the State’s AMENDED Motion to Adjudicate Guilt as follows: condition (a).
As MODIFIED , the judgment is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered May 17, 2016.–6– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
DADRIAN NAKIA AYERS, Appellant
No. 05-15-01158-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F12-72313-J. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright, Justices Bridges and Lang participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this da te, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows in the recitation of the court’s findings: (5) While on community supervision, Defenda nt violated the terms and conditions of community supervision as set ou t in the State’s AMENDED Motion to Adjudicate Guilt as follows: condition (a).
As MODIFIED , the judgment is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered May 17, 2016.