AFFIRMED as MODIFIED and Opinion Filed May 6, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-01326-CR 

No. 05-22-01327-CR 

No. 05-22-01328-CR 

No. 05-22-01329-CR 

DEVANTE JAMAL HARRISON, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. F19-76316-S, F19-76317-S, 

F18-76645-S, and F19-76268-S 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Smith 

Opinion by Justice Reichek 

In December 2020, pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Devante Jamal 

Harrison pleaded guilty to four offenses—kidnapping and three counts of aggravated 

assault with a deadly weapon—and the trial court placed him on deferred 

adjudication community supervision for ten years. In 2022, the State moved to 

revoke appellant’s community supervision or proceed with an adjudication of guilt 

in each case, alleging he violated several of the conditions. At a hearing on the 
 –2– 

State’s motions, appellant pleaded true to some of the State’s allegations and not true 

to the others. After hearing evidence, the trial court revoked appellant’s community 

supervision and adjudicated him guilty of the four offenses. The trial court assessed 

punishment at 20 years’ confinement in the aggravated assault cases and 10 years’ 

confinement in the kidnapping case. In this appeal, appellant contends (1) the 

judgments should be modified to delete duplicative court costs, and the trial court 

erred in (2) admitting an exhibit into evidence at the revocation hearing, and (3) 

denying him his common-law right to allocution. In a cross-issue, the State asserts 

that other modifications should be made to the judgments. As modified, we affirm. 

Evidentiary Complaint 

We will address appellant’s issues out of order. In his second issue, appellant 

contends the trial court erred in admitting into evidence State’s Exhibit 1, a CD that 

contained audio of 18 phone calls appellant made from jail. Appellant objected to 

the exhibit on grounds the State did not properly authenticate it under rule of 

evidence 901. The trial court overruled the objection. The phone calls provided 

evidence that appellant violated the terms of his community supervision. 

We review a trial court’s ruling under Rule 901 for an abuse of discretion. 

Diamond v. State, 496 S.W.3d 124, 141 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, pet. 

ref’d). To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of 

evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that 

the item is what the proponent claims it is. TEX. R. EVID. 901(a). Conclusive proof 
 –3– 

of authenticity before allowing admission of disputed evidence is not required. 

Fowler v. State, 544 S.W.3d 844, 848 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018). The question for a 

trial court to decide is simply whether the proponent has supplied facts sufficient to 

support a reasonable jury determination that the evidence is authentic. Tienda v. 

State, 358 S.W.3d 633, 638 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). Rule 901(b) lists non-exclusive 

examples of evidence of authentication or identification that comply with the rule’s 

requirements. Diamond, 496 S.W.3d at 141; see TEX. R. EVID. 901(b). As an 

example of evidence sufficient to authenticate a voice record, the rule lists “[a]n 

opinion identifying a person’s voice—whether heard firsthand or through 

mechanical or electronic transmission or recording—based on hearing the voice at 

any time under circumstances that connect it with the alleged speaker.” TEX. R.

EVID. 901(b)(5). 

Here, the phone calls were admitted during the testimony of Abigail Cruz, an 

investigator with the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office. Her duties included 

pulling up calls made by inmates at the Lew Sterrett jail, and she was asked to do 

that in this case. To make sure phone calls actually belong to a particular defendant, 

Cruz uses the book-in number assigned to the defendant. In this case, she found 

appellant’s book-in number and used it to pull calls he made while incarcerated. 

Cruz testified that State’s Exhibit 1 contained 18 calls she pulled using appellant’s 

book-in number. Appellant made “upwards of thousands of calls,” and Cruz 

reviewed some of the calls. Cruz testified that appellant identified himself at the 
 –4– 

beginning of each call. Cruz determined that the phone number appellant called 

more than any other belonged to Brooklyn Longbine. (Appellant later called 

Longbine to testify on his behalf at the hearing.) 

Defense counsel took Cruz on voir dire. She stated she did not burn the CD 

that contained the calls and did not know exactly its contents. But the disc was 

prepared in the way her office normally did jail calls. She had never met appellant 

or Longbine and would not recognize their voices if she met them on the street. On 

further questioning from the prosecutor, Cruz testified appellant and the people he 

talks with on the calls discuss the specifics of his case, including the revocation 

charges he faced. 

Appellant argues the phone calls were not authenticated because Cruz could 

not identify his or other voices. He compares Cruz to “the sponsoring witness 

deemed insufficient” by the court of criminal appeals in Kephart v. State. But 

Kephart has been overruled because it erroneously held that pre-rules predicate 

requirements for the authentication of evidence still applied after enactment of Rule 

901. See Kephart v. State, 875 S.W.2d 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994), overruled by 

Angleton v. State, 971 S.W.2d 65 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). For purposes of Rule 901, 

the recordings in this case were sufficiently authenticated. Cruz used appellant’s 

book-in number to pull up the phone calls. Each call begins with a recorded message 

stating, “Hello, this is a prepaid collect call from Devante, an incarcerated individual 

at Dallas County Jail.” Further, the subject matter of the calls involved things that 
 –5– 

would only be known by appellant and people closely involved with him. The State 

provided evidence sufficient to support a finding that the evidence in question was 

what the State claimed. We overrule appellant’s second issue. 

Allocution 

In his third issue, appellant contends he is entitled to a new punishment 

hearing because the trial court denied him his common-law right to allocution. The 

term “allocution” refers to a criminal defendant’s opportunity to present his personal 

plea to the court in mitigation of punishment before sentence is imposed. Albiar v. 

State, No. 05-22-00558-CR, 2023 WL 5814273, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 8, 

2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing McClintick v. State, 

508 S.W.2d 616, 618 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (op. on reh’g)). Appellant 

acknowledges the trial court complied with the statutory requirements for allocution. 

See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.07. He argues there is a broader commonlaw right of allocution which he was denied. 

To complain on appeal of the denial of the right of allocution, whether 

statutory or one claimed under the common law, a defendant must timely object. 

Albiar, 2023 WL 5814273, at *2. We have repeatedly held that a defendant who 

fails to timely object to the denial of his right of allocution does not preserve the 

complaint for appeal. Id. (citing Hicks v. State, No. 05-20-00614-CR, 2021 WL 

3042672, at 1–2 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 19, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication) (collecting cases)). Here, when the trial judge orally 
 –6– 

pronounced appellant’s sentences, she asked if there was any legal reason why 

sentence should not be imposed. In response, counsel renewed unspecified 

objections made prior to the hearing and objected to the “lack of corpus delicti.” 

Appellant did not raise a timely objection to the denial of his right to allocution and 

has not preserved this issue for appellate review. We overrule appellant’s third issue. 

Modification of the Judgments 

In his first issue, appellant asks the Court to modify three of the judgments 

adjudicating guilt to delete duplicative court costs. The State agrees that duplicative 

costs were assessed, and in its cross-issue, asserts the judgments should also be 

modified to correctly reflect appellant’s pleas to the allegations that he violated 

conditions of community supervision and the trial court’s findings on those 

allegations. 

This Court has the power to modify a judgment to make the record speak the 

truth when we have the necessary information before us to do so. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. 

State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d). In a single 

criminal action in which a defendant is convicted of two or more offenses or of 

multiple counts of the same offense, the court may assess each court cost or fee only 

once against a defendant. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 102.073(a). For 

purposes of this rule, a person convicted of two or more offenses in the same trial is 

convicted of those offenses in a single criminal action. Shuler v. State, 650 S.W.3d 
 –7– 

683, 690 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2022, no pet.). Generally, a cost should be assessed in 

the case with the highest category offense but, when the convictions are for the same 

category of offense and the costs are the same, the costs should be assessed in the 

case with the lowest trial court case number. Id.; see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN.

art. § 102.073(b). 

The record reflects that the costs assessed in each case include $351 for the 

same seven fees. Because these costs are duplicative, they should have been 

assessed only in trial court cause number F18-76645-S, the aggravated assault case 

with the lowest trial court case number. See Hamlett v. State, No. 05-19-00552-CR, 

2020 WL 4047968 at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 20, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., 

not designated for publication). Accordingly, we modify the other three judgments 

to delete $351 in court costs.1

 

Next, the State contends the judgments should be modified to accurately 

reflect appellant’s pleas on the State’s motions. Each judgment recites that 

appellant’s plea to the motion was “not true.” The record reflects, however, that 

appellant pleaded true to some of the allegations. The State’s amended motions to 

revoke alleged two violations of condition 1, two violations of condition 3, two 

violations of condition 14, and violations of conditions 5, 7, 17, and 22. At the 

1

 Two of the judgments that need to be modified include a cost not included in any other 

judgment. The costs in number F19-76316-S include a $4 CDC Technology Fee, and the costs in 

number F19-76268-S include a $6 “TRNS F.” Those costs will remain. 
 –8– 

revocation hearing, the State abandoned its allegations that appellant violated 

conditions 5 and 17. Appellant pleaded true to allegations that he violated conditions 

7 and 14. Accordingly, we sustain the State’s cross-issue and modify the judgments 

to reflect that appellant pleaded not true to allegations 1, 3, and 22, and true to 

allegations 7 and 14. See Kellum v. State, No. 05-21-00765-CR, 2023 WL 3070935, 

at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 25, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication); Urbina v. State, No. 05-14-00329-CR, 2015 WL 1509816, at *1 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas Mar. 30, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 

The State also contends the judgments do not accurately reflect the conditions 

of community supervision the trial court found appellant to have violated. It argues 

the judgments fail to reflect violations of conditions 5 and 17. Those are the 

violations the State abandoned. The judgments accurately state that the trial court 

found violations of conditions 1, 3, 7, 14, and 22. We sustain the State’s cross-issue 

in part and deny it in part. 

As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgments. 

Do Not Publish 

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

221326F.U05 

 

/Amanda L. Reichek/

AMANDA L. REICHEK 

JUSTICE 
 –9– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

DEVANTE JAMAL HARRISON, 

Appellant 

No. 05-22-01326-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F19-76316-S. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Reichek. Justices Molberg and Smith 

participating. 

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

MODIFIED as follows: 

Under “Court Costs,” “$355” is replaced with “$4”; 

Under “Plea to Motion to Adjudicate,” “Not True” is replaced with 

“True to 7, 14; Not True to 1, 3, 22.” 

 

As MODIFIED, the judgment is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered this 6th day of May, 2024. 

 
 –10– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

DEVANTE JAMAL HARRISON, 

Appellant 

No. 05-22-01327-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F19-76317-S. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Reichek. Justices Molberg and Smith 

participating. 

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

MODIFIED as follows: 

Under “Court Costs,” “$351” is replaced with “$0”; 

Under “Plea to Motion to Adjudicate,” “Not True” is replaced with 

“True to 7, 14; Not True to 1, 3, 22.” 

 

As MODIFIED, the judgment is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered this 6th day of May, 2024. 

 
 –11– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

DEVANTE JAMAL HARRISON, 

Appellant 

No. 05-22-01328-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F18-76645-S. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Reichek. Justices Molberg and Smith 

participating. 

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

MODIFIED as follows: 

 

Under “Plea to Motion to Adjudicate,” “Not True” is replaced with 

“True to 7, 14; Not True to 1, 3, 22.” 

As MODIFIED, the judgment is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered this 6th day of May, 2024. 

 
 –12– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

DEVANTE JAMAL HARRISON, 

Appellant 

No. 05-22-01329-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F19-76268-S. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Reichek. Justices Molberg and Smith 

participating. 

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

MODIFIED as follows: 

Under “Court Costs,” “$357” is replaced with “$6”; 

Under “Plea to Motion to Adjudicate,” “Not True” is replaced with 

“True to 7, 14; Not True to 1, 3, 22.” 

 

As MODIFIED, the judgment is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered this 6th day of May, 2024.