AFFIR1’Vl as modified; Opinion issued October 4, 2012

In The 

## nnrt uf \pnata Fiftt! t)uitnrt uf c!1rxas at alla No. 05-1 1-00684-CR
GEREMY THOMAS HENDERSON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

### No. 7 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause 

### No. F08-73646-Y 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices O’Neill, FitzGerald, and Lang-Miers Opinion By Justice FitzGerald Geremy Thomas Henderson appeals fromthe adjudication ofhis guilt forassaultinvolving family violence. See TEx. PENAL CODE ANN. 

## § 22.01(a)(l) (West 2011); TEx. FAM. CODE ANN. 

## § 71.004(1) (West2008). Thetrial courtassessedpunishmentateightyears’ imprisonment. Infour points oferror, appellantcontends thejudgment shouldbe modifiedto show: (1) hepleadedtrueto
some of the allegations in the State’s motion to adjudicate; (2) the conditions of community supervisionhewas foundtohaveviolated; (3)the correctnameoftheattorneyrepresentingthe State at the adjudication hearing; and (4) 

### the correct spelling ofappellant’s name. We modify the trial court’sjudgment adjudicating guilt and affirm as modified. The background ofthe case and the evidenceadmittedattrial arewell knowntotheparties, andwethereforelimitrecitationofthefacts.We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of/\ppellate Procedure 47.4 because the lan to be applied in the case is well settled. in its motion to adjudicate, the State alleged appellant violated conditions B, C, D, F. 11. 1, J, K. M, N, 0. and P ofhis community supervision. During a hearing on the motion, the State withdrew the allegations concerning conditions C and I. Appellant pleaded true to violating conditions 13. Fl. J. K. and 0. and not true to violating conditions D. F. M. N, and P

. After hearing testimony from witnesses and appellant, the trial court found appellant violated conditions 13, 1), F, 1-1. .1, N, 0, and P. Thejudgment states appellant pleaded not true to the allegations in the motion to adjudicate and that the trial court found appellant violated the conditions ol community supervision as set out in the motion. Thus. the judgment is incorrect. We sustain appellant’s first and second points oferror. The record shows Don Guidry represented the State during the hearing on the motion to adjudicate, and thatthe correct spelling of appellant’s first name is “Geremy.” Thejudgment states appellants first name as Germey” and that Lea Thomson was the state’s attorney. Thus the judgment is incorrect. We sustain appellants third and fourth points oferror. We modify the trial court’sjudgment adjudicating guilt to show (1) appellant’s true name is Geremy Thomas Henderson; (2) the attorney for the State is Don Guidry; (3) appellantpleaded true to violating conditions B. H, .1. K. and 0 and not true to conditions D. F.M. N, and P; and (4) the trial court found appellant violated conditions B, D, F. H, J. N. 0. and P of community supervision. 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).As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

KERRY P. ITZGERALD JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEx. R. App. P. 47 1 10684F.U05

## nnrt ufppLab3 

## .ift1! Ji!itrirt Ut QrXWi 

### It 

## Dullt JUDGMENT GEREMY T[ION AS IIENDERSON, Appellant No. 05-1 l-00684-(R V. THE STATE C)F TEXAS. Appellee Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7 ofDallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. F08-7S646-Y). Opinion delivered by Justice FitzGerald. Justices O’Neill and Lang-Miers participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion ofthis date, the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt is MODIFIED as follows: Thejudgment adjudicating guilt is modified to show appellant’s true name is “Geremy Thomas Henderson.” The section entitled Attorney for State” is modified to show Don Guidry.” The section entitled Plea to Motion to Adjudicate’ is modified to show ‘1rue to conditions B. 1-1, J. K. 0 and Not True to conditions D. F. M. N. P.’ The section entitled “(5) While on community supervision” is modified to show “(5) While on community supervision. Defendant violated conditions B. D. F. 11. J. N.

, P of community supervision.” As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’sjudgment. Judgment entered October 4. 2012.

KFRITGEALD JUSThSE