Modified and Affirmed and Opinion Filed August 1, 2022

S

In the

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-21-00452-CR

ABDULSATAR ABDULRAHMAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F18-23889-W

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Carlyle, and Goldstein

Opinion by Justice Carlyle

Following Abdulsatar Abdulrahman’s open plea of guilty to the offense of 

arson of a habitation, the trial court sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. He 

asserts the trial court’s judgment should be reformed “to reflect the correct statute of 

conviction.” We affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified in this memorandum 

opinion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4. 

A judgment must reflect the offense for which the defendant was convicted. 

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42.01, § 1(13). There are multiple methods of 

committing the offense of arson. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 28.02(a). Subsection 
–2–

(a)(2)(A) states that a person commits arson “if the person starts a fire . . . or causes 

an explosion with intent to destroy or damage . . . any building, habitation, or 

vehicle . . . knowing that it is within the limits of an incorporated city or town.” 

Subsection (d)(2) states, “An offense under Subsection (a) is a felony of the second 

degree, except that the offense is a felony of the first degree if it is shown on the trial 

of the offense that . . . the property intended to be damaged or destroyed by the actor 

was a habitation or a place of assembly or worship.” 

Mr. Abdulrahman confessed to the indictment’s allegation that “with intent to 

damage and destroy a habitation,” he “start[ed] a fire and cause[d] an 

explosion . . . knowing that said habitation was within the limits of an incorporated 

city.” The record shows the trial court convicted him of “ARSON HABITATION 

WORSHIP,” which his plea agreement and the judgment describe as a first-degree 

felony. The trial court’s judgment states, “Statute for offense: 28.02(D)(2) Penal 

Code.” 

Mr. Abdulrahman asserts the judgment “should be reformed to reflect that [he] 

was convicted of arson pursuant to ‘28.02(a)(2)(A) Penal Code,’” because “[t]he 

offense of arson of a habitation is actually set out in” that subsection. The State 

asserts it “is not opposed to this Court modifying the judgment to include the 

additional applicable subsection of the statute under which Appellant was convicted 

for first-degree arson of a habitation.” 
–3–

This Court “has the power to correct and reform the judgment of the court 

below to make the record speak the truth when it has the necessary data and 

information to do so.” Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

1991, pet. ref’d); accord Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1993). Here, the judgment’s “description of the statute of offense is not as precise as 

it could be.” Williams v. State, No. 05-20-00939-CR, 2022 WL 354587, at *2 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas Feb. 7, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 

We sustain Mr. Abdulrahman’s issue and modify the trial court’s judgment to 

state that he was convicted under “Penal Code § 28.02(a)(2)(A), § 28.02(d)(2).” See 

id.; see also Sikes v. State, No. 05-20-01126-CR, 2022 WL 1769115, at *2–3 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas June 1, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

(modifying trial court’s judgment sua sponte to include specific statutory section

describing offense instead of only the provision regarding enhancement and 

penalties).

We affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified. 

210452f.u05

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) 

/Cory L. Carlyle/

CORY L. CARLYLE

JUSTICE
–4–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

ABDULSATAR ABDULRAHMAN, 

Appellant

No. 05-21-00452-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F18-23889-W.

Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle. 

Justices Myers and Goldstein 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we MODIFY the trial court’s 

judgment to state that the “Statute for offense” is “Penal Code § 28.02(a)(2)(A), 

§ 28.02(d)(2).”

As MODIFIED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 1

st day of August, 2022.