AFFIRMED as MODIFIED and Op inion 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 TE XAS, 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, enha nced, 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 add itional requested modifi cation. We sustain appellant’s and the State’s issues, modify the judgments, and as modified, affirm.–2– Cause Number 05-22-00133-CR (Tri al court cause no. F21-75986-R) The conviction in this case is for rep eated violation of a protective order. See
T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 25.072. Appellant argues that the judgment be modified to: (i) reflect the correct stat ute for the offense, (ii) incl ude Kinsey Stango, the other attorney for the State, and (iii) delete th e assessment of court costs as duplicative. The State urges that the judgment also be m odified to include appellant’s plea of true and the court’s finding on the enhancem ent paragraph to the indictment. Cause Number 05-22-00134-CR (Tri al court cause no. F20-41501-R) The conviction in this case is for aggravated robbery. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 29.03. Appellant argues that the judgment and bill of costs should be modified to: (i) reflect that the trial c ourt 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 refo rm a judgment to make th e 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); T EX
. R. A PP
. 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 modifi cations. 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Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. 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 st atute for the offense is T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN 25.072, (ii) include Kinsey Stango, the other attorney for the State, (iii) de lete the assessment of court costs as duplicative, and (iv) include appellant’s pl ea of true to the enhancement paragraph and the court’s finding th at 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, an d (ii) include Kinsey St ango, 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