AFFIRMED as MODIFIED and Opinion Filed March 1, 2023 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-01152-CR No. 05-21-01153-CR ADRIAN GILLIAN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TE XAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F18-76363-R, F18-53171-R MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Reichek, Nowell, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Garcia Appellant judicially conf essed and entered open guilty pleas to aggravated robbery and evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle. After a punishment hearing, the court assessed punishment at twenty-five years in prison in the aggravated robbery case and ten years in prison in the evading arrest case. Appellant now argues the trial court e rred in permitting evidence of his gang affiliation and because the State made an improper ar gument. Appellant further argues that the judgments should be refo rmed. We modify the judgments and, as modified, affirm.–2– I. Background On September 22, 2018, two armed robber s ordered one of the co-owners of a Wingstop to open the safe at gunpoint. Appellant was identif ied and apprehended at the scene. On March 21, 2019, officers investigat ing a different aggravated robbery made a felony stop on a vehicle driven by a ppellant. Appellant evad ed arrest for over twenty minutes before he was taken into custody. Appellant was charged with aggravat ed robbery and evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle. He judicia lly confessed to both charges and entered open guilty pleas to the court. After a punishment hearing, the court assessed punishment at twenty-five years in prison in the aggravated robbery case and ten years in prison in the evading arre st case. This appeal followed. II. Analysis Gang Affiliation Testimony Appellant’s first issue argues the trial court erred by allowing Officer Jared Maddox to testify about appellant’s gang a ffiliation. The record reflects, however, that appellant did not object to the testimony in the court below. “To properly preserve an issue con cerning the admission of evidence for appeal, a party’s objection must inform th e trial court why or on what basis the otherwise admissible evidence should be excluded.” Ford v. State , 305 S.W.3d 530, 533 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A); Martinez v.–3– State , 327 S.W.3d 727, 736 n.10 (Tex. Crim. A pp. 2010) (failure to object waives issue on appeal). Because appellant failed to object, the issue has not been preserved for our review. Appellant’s first issue is resolved against him. Improper Argument Appellant’s second issue argues th e State made improper argument. Specifically, during closing argument, the State argued: Judge, these are very serious cases. Thank God nobody got killed. But at some point, Your Honor, we’re as king for the Court to sentence this defendant to enough years for him to understand the severity of what he’s done. And also to seek justice fo r us, for the State of Texas, for the victims that -- many victims that have been involved at the bad choices that this defendant, Adrian Gillia n, has made. Even with his poor grandmother. In general, proper jury argument falls within one of four areas: (1) summation of the evidence, (2) reasonable deduction from the evidence, (3) answer to an argument of opposing counsel, and (4) plea for law enforcement. See Freeman v.
State , 340 S.W.3d 717, 727 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (citing Brown v. State , 270 S.W.3d 564, 570 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)). To preserve a complaint that a jury argument was improper, a defendant must lodge a “proper objection.” Hougham v.
State , 659 S.W.2d 410, 414 (Tex. Crim . App. [Panel Op.] 1983); see also Arellanes
v. State , No. 05-18-00429-CR, 2018 WL 3629087, at *4 (Tex . App.—Dallas July 31, 2018, pet. ref’d) (mem. op ., not designated for publica tion). A defendant’s failure to properly object results in forfeiture of his right to complain on appeal about the argument. See Castillo Alvarado v. State , No. 05-19-00115-CR, 2020 WL 1181487,–4– at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 12, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see also T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33.1. When the State made the complained-o f argument, appellant did not object. Therefore, the issue is forfeited on appeal . Appellant’s second issue is resolved against him. Modifying the Judgment Appellant’s third and fourth issues ar gue the judgments should be modified, In particular, appellant requests that th e judgment in Cause Nu mber F18-7636-R be modified to reflect that appellant entered an open plea of guilty to the court and was not sentenced pursuant to a plea bargain, and that the judgments in both cases be modified to reflect that the prosecutor was Chalana Oliver. The State agrees the judgments should be modified. We are authorized to refo rm a judgment to make th e record speak the truth when we have the necessa ry information to do so. Bigley v. State , 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). He re, the judgment in Cause No. F18-76363-CR states that appellant was sentenced to twenty–f ive years in prison pursuant to a plea bargain. But the record reflects that appe llant entered an open plea of guilty to the court and no plea bargain was operative as to punishment. The judgments in both cases state that the prosecutor was Sasha Stribling. The reporter’s record, however, reflects thatthe prosecutor was Chalana Oliver.–5– We therefore sustain appellant’s thir d and fourth issues and modify the judgments accordingly.
III. Conclusion We modify the judgment in Cause No. F1 8-76363-CR to reflect that appellant entered an open plea of guilty to the court and no plea bargain was operative as to punishment. We modify both judgments to reflect that the prosecutor was Chalana Oliver. As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b) 211152F.U05 /Dennise Garcia/ DENNISE GARCIA JUSTICE–6– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT ADRIAN GILLIAN, Appellant
No. 05-21-01152-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F18-76363-R. Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia. Justices Reichek and Nowell participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this da te, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED to reflect that appellant entere d an open plea of guilty and no plea bargain agreement was operative as to pun ishment and the attorney for the State was Chalana Oliver.
As REFORMED , the judgment is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered March 1, 2023–7– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT ADRIAN GILLIAN, Appellant
No. 05-21-01153-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F18-53171-R. Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia. Justices Reichek and Nowell participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this da te, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED to reflect that the attorney for the State was Chalana Oliver.
As REFORMED , the judgment is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered March 1, 2023