AFFIRMED as MODIFIED and Opinion Filed September 22, 2022 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00133-CR 

 No. 05-22-00143-CR 

LLOYD ERIC DEMUS, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos F21-75986-R, F20-41501-R 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Myers, Pedersen, III, and Garcia 

Opinion by Justice Garcia 

Appellant was convicted of repeated violation of a protective order and 

aggravated robbery. Punishment, enhanced, was assessed at fifteen years 

imprisonment for each offense. 

In several issues, appellant argues that the judgments should be modified. In 

a cross-point, the State identifies an additional requested modification. We sustain 

appellant’s and the State’s issues, modify the judgments, and as modified, affirm. 
 –2– 

Cause Number 05-22-00133-CR (Trial court cause no. F21-75986-R) 

The conviction in this case is for repeated violation of a protective order. See 

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 25.072. Appellant argues that the judgment be modified 

to: (i) reflect the correct statute for the offense, (ii) include Kinsey Stango, the other 

attorney for the State, and (iii) delete the assessment of court costs as duplicative. 

The State urges that the judgment also be modified to include appellant’s plea of true 

and the court’s finding on the enhancement paragraph to the indictment. 

Cause Number 05-22-00134-CR (Trial court cause no. F20-41501-R) 

The conviction in this case is for aggravated robbery. See TEX. PENAL CODE 

ANN. § 29.03. Appellant argues that the judgment and bill of costs should be 

modified to: (i) reflect that the trial court credited appellant’s back time spent in 

custody toward court costs and the balance due is zero, and (ii) include Kinsey 

Stango, the other attorney for the State. 

We are authorized to reform a judgment to make the record speak the truth 

when we have the necessary information to do so. Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 

27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); TEX.R. APP. P. 43.2(b).We are also authorized to modify 

a bill of costs. See Rodgers v. State, No. 05-20-00211-CR, 2022 WL 1076067, at *5 

(Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 11, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.). Here, the record supports 

appellant’s and the State’s requested modifications. We therefore sustain appellant’s 

issues and the State’s cross-point and modify the judgments accordingly. 

 
 –3– 

As modified, the judgments are affirmed. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 

220133F.U05 

 

/Dennise Garcia/ 

DENNISE GARCIA 

JUSTICE 
 –4– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

LLOYD ERIC DEMUS, Appellant 

No. 05-22-00133-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 265th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F21-75986-R. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia. 

Justices Myers and Pedersen, III 

participating. 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

MODIFIED to: (i) reflect that the correct statute for the offense is TEX. PENAL CODE ANN 

25.072, (ii) include Kinsey Stango, the other attorney for the State, (iii) delete the assessment of 

court costs as duplicative, and (iv) include appellant’s plea of true to the enhancement paragraph 

and the court’s finding that the enhancement paragraph was true. The bill of costs is modified to 

delete the assessment of court costs. 

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered September 22, 2022 

 
 –5– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

LLOYD ERIC DEMUS, Appellant 

No. 05-22-00134-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 265th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F21-41501-R. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia. 

Justices Myers and Pedersen, III 

participating. 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is 

MODIFIED to: (i) reflect that the trial court credited appellant’s back time spent in custody 

toward court costs and the balance due is zero, and (ii) include Kinsey Stango, the other attorney 

for the State. The bill of costs is modified to reflect that the balance due is zero. 

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered September 22, 2022