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 TE XAS, 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, appella nt Devante Jamal Harrison pleaded guilty to four offenses—k idnapping and three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon—and th e trial court placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision for te n 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 severa l of the conditions. At a hearing on the–2– State’s motions, appellant pleaded true to so me of the State’s allegations and not true to the others. After hearing evidence, th e trial court revoked a ppellant’s community supervision and adjudicated him guilty of the four offenses. The trial court assessed punishment at 20 years’ confinement in th e 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 ev idence 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 i ssues out of order. In his second issue, appellant contends the trial court erred in admitting in to evidence State’s Exhibit 1, a CD that contained audio of 18 phone calls appellant made from ja il. 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.—Hous ton [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 pr oponent claims it is. T EX
. R. E VID . 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 th e proponent has supplied facts sufficient to support a reasonable jury determina tion that the evid ence 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 auth entication or identification th at comply with the rule’s requirements. Diamond , 496 S.W.3d at 141; see T EX
. R. E VID . 901(b). As an example of evidence suffici ent to authenticate a voice re cord, 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.” T EX
. R.
E VID . 901(b)(5). Here, the phone calls were admitted duri ng the testimony of Abigail Cruz, an investigator with the Dallas County Distri ct Attorney’s Office. Her duties included pulling up calls made by inmate s at the Lew Sterrett jail, and she was asked to do that in this case. To make sure phone calls actually bel ong to a particular defendant, Cruz uses the book-in number assigned to th e defendant. In this case, she found appellant’s book-in number and used it to pu ll calls he made while incarcerated. Cruz testified that State’s Exhibit 1 cont ained 18 calls she pulled using appellant’s book-in number. Appellant made “upwards of thousan ds of calls,” and Cruz reviewed some of the calls. Cruz testifie d that appellant identified himself at the–4– beginning of each call. Cruz determin ed that the phone num ber appellant called more than any other belonged to Brookl yn Longbine. (Appe llant 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 di d jail calls. She had never met appellant or Longbine and would not recognize their voi ces if she met them on the street. On further questioning from the prosecutor, Cr uz testified appellant and the people he talks with on the calls discuss the specifi cs of his case, including the revocation charges he faced. Appellant argues the phone calls were no t authenticated be cause Cruz could not identify his or other voices. He co mpares Cruz to “the sponsoring witness deemed insufficient” by the c ourt of criminal appeals in Kephart v. State . But Kephart has been overruled becaus e it erroneously held that pre-rules predicate requirements for the authentication of eviden ce 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 sufficien tly authenticated. Cruz used appellant’s book-in number to pull up the phone calls. Ea ch call begins with a recorded message stating, “Hello, this is a prepaid collect call from Devante, an incarcerated individual at Dallas County Jail.” Furthe r, 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 fi nding that the evidence in question was what the State claimed. We ove rrule appellant’s second issue.
Allocution In his third issue, appellant conte nds 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 opportu nity to present his personal plea to the court in mitigation of puni shment 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 desi gnated 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 th e statutory requirements for allocution.
See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 42.07. He argues ther e is a broader commonlaw right of allocution wh ich 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 hi s 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 as ked if there was a ny legal reason why sentence should not be imposed. In re sponse, 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 re view. We overrule appe llant’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-issu e, asserts the judgments should also be modified to correctly reflect appellant’s pl eas to the allegations that he violated conditions of community su pervision 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 in formation before us to do so. See T EX
. R. A PP
. 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.—Dal las 1991, pet. ref’d). In a single criminal action in which a defendant is c onvicted of two or more offenses or of multiple counts of the same o ffense, the court may assess each court cost or fee only once against a defendant. T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 102.073(a). For purposes of this rule, a person convicted of tw o 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 co st 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 sa me, the costs should be assessed in the case with the lowest trial court case number. Id. ; see T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. § 102.073(b). The record reflects that the costs a ssessed 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). Accordingl y, 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 refl ects, however, that appellant pleaded true to some of the al legations. The State’s amended motions to revoke alleged two violations of condition 1, two viola tions of condition 3, two violations of condition 14, and violations of conditions 5, 7, 17, and 22. At the

1 T wo of the judgments that need to be modifi ed include a cost not included in any other judgment. The costs in number F19-76316-S incl ude 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. A ppellant pleaded true to allegati ons that he violated conditions 7 and 14. Accordingly, we sustain the St ate’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 Ap r. 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 foun d 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 su stain the State’s cross-issue in part and deny it in part. As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. 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 da te, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows: Under “Court Costs,” “$355” is replaced with “$4”; Under “Plea to Motion to Adjudicat e,” “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 da te, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows: Under “Court Costs,” “$351” is replaced with “$0”; Under “Plea to Motion to Adjudicat e,” “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 da te, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows: Under “Plea to Motion to Adjudicat e,” “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 da te, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows: Under “Court Costs,” “$357” is replaced with “$6”; Under “Plea to Motion to Adjudicat e,” “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.