Affirmed as Modified and Opinion Filed June 21, 2016 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00186-CR 

CHARLES DEWAYNE HOOKS, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F-1357149-T 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Bridges, and Justice Evans 

Opinion by Justice Bridges 

Charles Dewayne Hooks appeals his murder conviction.1 Appellant entered a guilty plea 

but elected that a jury assess his punishment. A jury sentenced appellant to confinement for life 

and a $10,000 fine. In two points of error, appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in 

admitting into evidence photographs of his tattoos and the judgment should be modified to 

reflect the correct prosecutor and the correct spelling of defense counsel’s name. As modified, 

we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

For more than twenty years, Olga O’Bryant worked at Ramon’s barber shop, and she 

owned the barber shop for about a year and a half before selling it to Alex Fernandez. Appellant 

worked for O’Bryant and continued to work for Fernandez after Fernandez purchased the barber 

 1

 The record contains the State’s notice that evidence of the following offenses could be introduced at trial: assault, unlawful carrying of a 

weapon, three possession of marijuana offenses, and assault on a public servant. 
 –2– 

shop. Fernandez had a “vision” for the barber shop that included “having barbers dress well and 

be professional in front of customers.” 

On Jesse Trevino’s first day working at the barber shop, appellant showed up for work 

wearing basketball shorts. Appellant was “talking crazy,” using “curse words,” and “talking real 

loud and talking bad.” Fernandez “tried to fire” appellant, but appellant “started crying, saying 

he had a family.” Fernandez agreed that appellant could keep his job if he came in on time, did 

his job, and dressed well. The next morning, appellant was “dressed up pretty nice,” and 

“everything seemed good.” After lunch, Fernandez left the barber shop, and appellant “started 

talking crazy like real loud.” Some customers who were seventeen or eighteen years old were 

present, and appellant “started saying some real crazy stuff about like prison and talking about 

how he rapes people in prison and stuff like that.” Trevino texted Fernandez about appellant’s 

behavior. 

When Fernandez returned to the barber shop, appellant was “arguing with” O’Bryant. 

Appellant told O’Bryant that it would be her fault if he lost his job because appellant thought 

O’Bryant had been talking about him. Appellant lifted his shirt to show O’Bryant his tattoos, 

which included a large “OG” on his abdomen, a handgun, and a smaller “OG” higher on his 

chest next to a barber pole, “You reap what you sow,” “Life is a gamble,” and “smile now, cry 

later.” O’Bryant said she was not talking about appellant, and she seemed afraid. Fernandez 

took appellant outside and had a conversation with him. Fernandez told appellant to “get his 

stuff and leave,” and appellant collected his belongings but “started getting angry” and yelling. 

Appellant left but came back ten minutes later and “came running in there yelling trying to fight” 

Fernandez. Appellant was also calling Fernandez and saying he was going to kill Fernandez. 

Someone called the police, but appellant had left when police arrived. Fernandez put one of 

appellant’s threatening calls on speaker for the officers to hear. Appellant continued to return to 
 –3– 

the barber shop and tried to get Fernandez to fight with him. Someone called police a second 

time, but appellant had left again when police returned to the barber shop. 

Police had left by the time appellant came to the barber shop for the last time. A 

customer let appellant in the back door, and appellant “walked right up to” Fernandez and shot 

him. Fernandez later died from his wound. 

 Appellant was indicted for Fernandez’s murder. Appellant entered a guilty plea but 

elected to have a jury assess punishment. At the punishment hearing, court investigator Gary 

O’Pry testified he photographed appellant’s tattoos pursuant to a motion from the State. The 

State offered the photographs into evidence. Defense counsel objected that the photographs were 

irrelevant and immaterial and their prejudicial value outweighed their probative value. The trial 

court overruled appellant’s objection. 

 Dallas police detective Derick Chaney testified he recorded the threatening voice mails 

appellant left on Fernandez’s phone. In one of the voice mails, appellant was “talking about 

trying to get [Fernandez] to come out and talk to an OG.” Chaney testified “OG” means 

“original gangster” and means “you want to be somebody in the neighborhood. It’s being a 

gangster, someone to break the law.” The jury sentenced appellant to life imprisonment, and this 

appeal followed. 

 In his first point of error, appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion by 

admitting the photographic evidence of his tattoos because the evidence was more prejudicial 

than probative. A ruling admitting or excluding evidence is subject to an abuse of discretion 

review. Cameron v. State, 241 S.W.3d 15, 19 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Under the abuse of 

discretion standard, the appellate court must uphold the trial court's ruling so long as it is within 

the zone of reasonable disagreement. Robbins v. State, 88 S.W.3d 256, 260 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2002); see also Khoshayand v. State, 179 S.W.3d 779, 783 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.). 
 –4– 

Texas rule of evidence 401 defines “relevance” as having any tendency to make the existence of 

any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable. TEX. R.

EVID. 401. Even if evidence is relevant, a trial court may exclude it if its probative value is 

substantially outweighed by the needless presentation of cumulative, misleading, confusing, or 

unfairly prejudicial evidence. TEX. R. EVID. 403. Article 37.07, section 3(a) of the Texas Code 

of Criminal Procedure governs the admissibility of evidence during the punishment phase of a 

noncapital trial and provides evidence may be offered by the State and defendant “as to any 

matter the court deems relevant” including evidence of reputation, character or the circumstances 

of the offense. TEX. CODE. CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 37.07, §3(a)(1) (West Supp. 2015). A 

defendant’s choice of tattoos, like his personal drawings, can reflect his character and/or 

demonstrate a motive for his crime. Conner v. State, 67 S.W.3d 192, 201 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2001). 

 Here, appellant entered a guilty plea, and the only issue was punishment. When the jury 

assesses punishment, it must be able to tailor the sentence to the particular defendant, and 

relevance is simply “a question of what is helpful to the jury in determining the appropriate 

sentence for a particular defendant in a particular case.” Sims v. State, 273 S.W.3d 291, 295 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2008). The record shows appellant pulled up his shirt and showed O’Bryant 

his tattoos while “arguing with” her and telling her it would be her fault if he lost his job. 

O’Bryant was afraid. The “OG” tattoo stood for “original gangster,” and appellant referred to 

himself as “OG” when threatening Fernandez. Thus, the record shows appellant used his selfstyled “original gangster” status in an attempt to threaten and intimidate both O’Bryant and 

Fernandez. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion 

in admitting evidence of the tattoos. See id.; Cameron, 241 S.W.3d at 19. We overrule 

appellant’s first point of error. 
 –5– 

 In his second point of error, appellant argues the judgment should be modified to reflect 

the correct prosecutor and the correct spelling of defense counsel’s name. The State agrees. We 

are authorized to reform the judgment to make it “speak the truth” of the sentence imposed when 

we have the necessary data and information to do so. Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 

(Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d). Accordingly, we sustain appellant’s second error and 

reform the judgment to reflect the correct prosecutor and correct spelling of defense counsel’s 

name. 

 As reformed, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 

150186F.U05 

 

/David L. Bridges/ 

DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE 
 –6– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

CHARLES DEWAYNE HOOKS, Appellant

No. 05-15-00186-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F-1357149-T. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. Chief 

Justice Wright and Justice Evans 

participating. 

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

as follows: 

Under the caption "Attorney for State:" "Jason Fine" is deleted and "Chris Pryor 

and Joseph Flores" is substituted. Under the caption "Attorney for Defendant:" 

"John Reed" is deleted and "John Read" is substituted. 

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee THE STATE OF TEXAS recover its costs of this appeal 

from appellant CHARLES DEWAYNE HOOKS. 

Judgment entered June 21, 2016.