AFFIRM as Modified; Opinion Filed November 7, 2013.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-12-01272-CR

No. 05-12-01273-CR

KENNETH ERIC HADDAD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F10-59239-W and F10-52190-W

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices O'Neill, Lang-Miers, and Evans 

Opinion by Justice Evans

In these consolidated appeals, Kenneth Eric Haddad challenges the trial court’s judgment

adjudicating his guilt and revoking his community supervision for the offenses of retaliation and 

aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. In his first four points of error, appellant generally 

complains that the judgment in each case incorrectly shows that (1) he entered a plea of true to 

the allegations in the State’s motion to adjudicate, and (2) the trial court found both of the State’s 

violation allegations to be true. In points of error five and six, appellant contends there is 

insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s assessment of court costs. After reviewing the 

record, we agree that the judgments should be modified as requested by appellant in points of 

error one through four. We also conclude, however, that appellant’s fifth and sixth points of error 
–2–

lack merit. Accordingly, we modify the judgments as appellant requests in points one through 

four and affirm the judgments as modified.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, appellant pleaded guilty to the offenses of 

retaliation and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. In accordance with the agreement, the 

trial court deferred adjudicating appellant’s guilt and placed him on five years of community 

supervision. The State later moved to adjudicate guilt and revoke appellant’s community 

supervision in each case alleging that he violated the following two conditions of his community 

supervision: (1) Condition A — appellant committed aggravated robbery on August 6, 2011; and 

(2) Condition J — appellant failed to pay his community service fees and was delinquent in the 

amount of $120.

After a hearing on the State’s motions, the trial court signed judgments in each case 

adjudicating appellant guilty and revoking his community supervision. The trial court sentenced 

appellant to ten years’ imprisonment in each case. The trial court’s judgments state that 

appellant pleaded true to the State’s motions and also indicate that the trial court found both of 

the State’s violation allegations “true.” Additionally, the trial court ordered appellant to pay 

court costs of $294 in the retaliation case and $344 in the aggravated assault case. These appeals

ensued.

ANALYSIS 

In points of error one and two, appellant contends the judgments incorrectly reflect that 

he pleaded true to the violations alleged in the State’s motions to adjudicate and revoke 

community supervision. In points of error three and four, appellant asserts that the judgments 

incorrectly indicate that the trial court found appellant violated both conditions of community 

supervision alleged in the State’s motions to adjudicate. The State concedes that the judgments 
–3–

are incorrect as asserted by appellant in points one through four. The State also agrees that the 

judgments should be modified in the ways requested by appellant. Our review of the record 

confirms that appellant did not plead true and instead contested the violation allegations in the 

State’s motions. Moreover, it appears that after hearing the evidence, the trial court found that 

appellant violated only the condition A of his community supervision and not Condition J. 

Specifically, the trial court stated at the conclusion of the hearing, “I find allegation A to be true. 

I find allegation J not to be true, based on the fact that [appellant] was incarcerated shortly after 

he was placed on probation.” When the record provides the necessary information to correct 

inaccuracies in a judgment, we have the authority to modify the judgment to speak the truth. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, 

pet. ref’d). Accordingly, we sustain appellant’s first, second, third, and fourth issues and modify 

the judgments as requested.

In his fifth and sixth points of error, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence 

to support the trial court’s assessment of $294 in court costs in the retaliation case and $344 in 

court costs in the aggravated assault case. Specifically, appellant argues the evidence is 

insufficient to support the imposition of court costs because the clerk’s records do not contain a 

written bill of costs. Appellant’s designations of record on appeal did not specifically request a 

clerk’s bill of costs in these cases and, at the time appellant’s brief was filed, the clerk’s records 

did not contain them. We ordered the clerk to file supplemental records containing the certified 

bill of costs associated with each case and the clerk did so. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(c)(1) 

(allowing supplementation of clerk’s record if relevant item omitted). Accordingly, appellant’s 

insufficiency complaint based upon the absence of a bill of costs is now moot. See Coronel v. 

State, 05-12-00493-CR, 2013 WL 3874446 at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 29, 2013, no pet. h.). 
–4–

Appellant has filed an objection to the supplemental clerk’s records arguing that (1) the 

bills of costs are unsigned, unsworn computer printouts that do not qualify as a proper bill of 

costs under article 103.001 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and (2) there is no 

indication the printouts were ever filed in the trial court or brought to the attention of the trial 

judge before costs were included in the judgments. We have previously addressed and rejected 

these arguments in Coronel. See id. at *4–5. Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s objection as 

well as his fifth and sixth issues.

We sustain appellant’s first, second, third, and fourth points of error. We modify the 

judgments in trial court cause numbers F-1059239-W and F10-52190-W to reflect that (1) 

appellant entered a plea of “not true” to the State’s motion to adjudicate and revoke community 

supervision, and (2) the trial court found “true” the State’s allegation that appellant violated 

condition A of his community supervision, and found the State’s allegation that appellant 

violated condition J of his community supervision “not true.” 

We affirm the trial court’s judgments as modified.

 

 

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

121272F.U05

/David Evans/

DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
–5–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

KENNETH ERIC HADDAD, Appellant

No. 05-12-01272-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F10-59239-W

Opinion delivered by Justice Evans, 

Justices O'Neill and Lang-Miers 

participating.

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

as follows:

(1) Appellant entered a plea of "not true" to the State's motion to adjudicate and 

revoke community supervision, and

(2) the trial court found "true" the State's allegation that appellant violated 

condition A of his community supervision and found "not true” the State’s 

allegation that appellant violated condition J of his community supervision.

As MODIFIED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 7th day of November, 2013.

/David Evans/

DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
–6–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

KENNETH ERIC HADDAD, Appellant

No. 05-12-01273-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F10-52190-W

Opinion delivered by Justice Evans, 

Justices O'Neill and Lang-Miers 

participating.

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

as follows:

(1) Appellant entered a plea of "not true" to the State's motion to adjudicate and 

revoke community supervision, and

(2) the trial court found "true” the State's allegation that appellant violated 

condition A of his community supervision and found “not true” the State’s 

allegation that appellant violated condition J of his community supervision.

As MODIFIED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 7th day of November, 2013.

/David Evans/

DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE