Affirmed as Modified and Opinion Filed November 30, 2016 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00996-CR 

No. 05-15-01000-CR 

GREGORY ACHILIKE, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. F14-60832-Q, F14-60833-Q 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Myers, and Justice Brown 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

Gregory Achilike appeals two convictions for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. 

In two issues, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to prison 

and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the cases and render judgment. We modify the trial 

court’s judgment in one case and affirm both judgments. 

BACKGROUND

Appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to two aggravated assault with a deadly 

weapon offenses. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a) (West 2011). During the sentencing 

phase of the proceedings, appellant testified he is a certified public accountant (CPA), has a wife 

and five children, and owns several businesses, including a gas station, a grocery store, a 

barbershop, and a CPA practice. Appellant testified that on the day of the offense, one of his 
 –2– 

regular customers told appellant that the complainants, Alisha Smith and her twin brother 

Alandre Smith, had stolen items from appellant’s store. Appellant retrieved an unloaded gun 

from his store, drove to a nearby bus stop where the complainants were, and confronted them. 

Appellant testified he never threatened the complainants; he had the gun in his hand only 

because it fell out of its holster when he “jumped out” of his car and had picked it up. Appellant 

testified that after Alisha said neither she nor her brother had been in his store, she turned her bag 

upside down and shook it. Appellant did not see any items from his store. Appellant told Alisha 

that he had made a mistake, then he drove back to his store. Appellant further testified the 

security guard at his store told him the gun was not operational, and appellant did not put any 

bullets in the gun. Appellant testified he was not aware that police officers test-fired the gun and 

it was operational. After finding appellant guilty, the trial court assessed punishment at four 

years’ imprisonment in each case. 

ABUSE OF DISCRETION

In his first issue, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him 

to imprisonment because that sentencing decision was “outside the zone of reasonable 

disagreement.” Appellant asserts that because he is a productive business owner in the 

community and merely mistakenly assumed the complainants had stolen items from his store, the 

trial court should have given him probation. 

Although appellant did not object when he was sentenced, he complained about the sentence 

in a timely filed amended motion for new trial on sentencing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1). 

Thus, he has preserved this issue for appellate review. As long as a sentence is within the proper 

range of punishment, it will not be disturbed on appeal. See Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 

814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon is a second-degree 

felony offense punishable by imprisonment for two to twenty years and an optional fine up to 
 –3– 

$10,000. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.33, 22.02(b). Appellant’s four-year sentences are 

within the statutory range. 

 We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in assessing the sentences. See 

Jackson, 680 S.W.2d at 814. We overrule appellant’s first issue. 

TRANSFER ORDER

In his second issue, appellant contends the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear 

these cases and render the judgments because the cases were not transferred to its docket. This 

Court has considered and rejected this issue on numerous occasions, and we do so again today. 

See Bourque v. State, 156 S.W.3d 675, 678 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. ref’d).1

 The 204th 

District Court had jurisdiction to hear appellant’s cases and render the judgments. We overrule 

appellant’s second issue. 

MODIFY JUDGMENT

We note the trial court’s judgment in cause no. 05-15-01000-CR incorrectly recites 

appellant’s name as “Gregory Achilkie.” Accordingly, we modify the judgment to show the 

correct spelling of appellant’s name as “Gregory Achilike.” See TEX. R. APP. 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). 

 1 We have cited Bourque forty-two times rejecting arguments similar to the one raised by appellant. We have 

explained that, under the government code, multiple district courts in a single county may adopt rules of 

administration and the district judges in Dallas County with criminal jurisdiction have done so requiring the 

assignment of newly filed cases “on a rotating basis among the district courts.” RULES OF ADMINISTRATION FOR 

DALLAS CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURTS AND DISTRICT COURTS GIVING PREFERENCE TO CRIMINAL CASES PURSUANT 

TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 74.093 1.1 (Jan. 12, 2012); TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 74.093 (West Supp. 

2016) (addressing adoption of local rules of administration to provide, in part, for assignment, docketing, transfer, 

and hearing of all cases); see e.g. Bourque, 156 S.W.3d at 678; Halton v. State, 05-14-00640-CR, 2015 WL 

3991827, at *13 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 1, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Also, the 

constitutional provision authorizing district judges to act for one another does not require a written order. See TEX. 

CONST. art. V., § 11 (“District Judges may exchange districts, or hold courts for each other when they may deem it 

expedient, and shall do so when required by law.”). 
 –4– 

CONCLUSION

In cause no. 05-15-00996-CR, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. In cause no. 05-15-

01000-CR, we affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47 

150996F.U05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –5– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

GREGORY ACHILIKE, Appellant 

No. 05-15-00996-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F14-60832-Q. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Myers and Brown participating. 

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

Judgment entered November 30, 2016. 

 
 –6– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

GREGORY ACHILIKE, Appellant 

No. 05-15-01000-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F14-60833-Q. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Myers and Brown participating. 

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

as follows: 

The title section “Gregory Achilkie” is modified to show “Gregory Achilike.” 

As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment. 

Judgment entered November 30, 2016.