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 TEXAS, 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 confessed 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 erred in permitting evidence of his gang 

affiliation and because the State made an improper argument. Appellant further 

argues that the judgments should be reformed. We modify the judgments and, as 

modified, affirm. 
 –2– 

I. Background 

On September 22, 2018, two armed robbers ordered one of the co-owners of 

a Wingstop to open the safe at gunpoint. Appellant was identified and apprehended 

at the scene. 

On March 21, 2019, officers investigating a different aggravated robbery 

made a felony stop on a vehicle driven by appellant. Appellant evaded arrest for over 

twenty minutes before he was taken into custody. 

Appellant was charged with aggravated robbery and evading arrest or 

detention with a motor vehicle. He judicially 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 arrest 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 affiliation. The record reflects, however, 

that appellant did not object to the testimony in the court below. 

“To properly preserve an issue concerning the admission of evidence for 

appeal, a party’s objection must inform the 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A); Martinez v. 
 –3– 

State, 327 S.W.3d 727, 736 n.10 (Tex. Crim. App. 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 the 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 asking 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 for us, for the State of Texas, for the 

victims that -- many victims that have been involved at the bad choices 

that this defendant, Adrian Gillian, 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 publication). 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1. 

When the State made the complained-of 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 argue the judgments should be modified, 

In particular, appellant requests that the judgment in Cause Number 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 reform a judgment to make the record speak the truth 

when we have the necessary information to do so. Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 

27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Here, the judgment in Cause No. F18-76363-CR states 

that appellant was sentenced to twenty–five years in prison pursuant to a plea 

bargain. But the record reflects that appellant 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 that the prosecutor was Chalana Oliver. 
 –5– 

We therefore sustain appellant’s third and fourth issues and modify the 

judgments accordingly. 

III. Conclusion 

We modify the judgment in Cause No. F18-76363-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 

TEX. R. APP. 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 date, the judgment of the trial court is 

MODIFIED to reflect that appellant entered an open plea of guilty and no plea 

bargain agreement was operative as to punishment 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 date, 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