Court Opinion

ID: 9375882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-01 07:07:38.811886+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:02.540906
License: Public Domain

AFFIRMED as MODIFIED and Opinion Filed February 23, 2023

                                    S  In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-20-00590-CR
                               No. 05-20-00591-CR

                         DAMON EVANS, Appellant
                                   V.
                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

              On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2
                            Dallas County, Texas
             Trial Court Cause Nos. F20-51047-I and F20-51046-I

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                   Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Garcia
                            Opinion by Justice Molberg

      Following appellant Damon Evans’ plea of guilty in an open plea hearing, the

trial court found Evans guilty of two charges of aggravated assault with a deadly

weapon, found true an enhancement paragraph in each indictment that alleged Evans

had a prior felony conviction of assault on a public servant, and sentenced him in

each case to eight years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s

Institutional Division, with the sentences to be served concurrently. Evans timely

appealed after the trial court entered judgments and certified his right to appeal. He
also timely filed a motion for new trial and presented it to the trial court. His motion

for new trial was overruled by operation of law without a hearing.

         Evans raises thirteen issues on appeal, the last three of which seek various

modifications to the two judgments. The State disputes Evans’ first ten issues,

agrees with the last three, and raises a cross-point seeking another modification to

the two judgments. We modify the judgments as reflected below, and as reformed,

affirm the judgments.

                                             I. ANALYSIS

A.       Guilty Plea and Finding of Guilt

         In his first six issues, Evans challenges in various respects the judgments

convicting him of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon as charged in the

indictments. Specifically, Evans argues the trial court erred because (1) his guilty

plea was not supported by an adequate judicial confession or factual basis in the

record (first and second issues); (2) his guilty plea was not knowingly and

voluntarily entered (third and fourth issues); and (3) rather than finding him guilty

as charged in the indictments, the trial court should have found him not guilty or

guilty of the lesser-included crime of assault (fifth and sixth issues).1

     1
      For each grouping of issues, Evans’ arguments are identical, except for the trial court cause numbers
to which they are directed. His first, third, and fifth issues concern trial court cause number F20-51046-I;
his second, fourth, and sixth issues concern trial court cause number F20-51047-I.
                                                   –2–
         1.     Judicial Confession

         In his first and second issues, Evans argues his guilty plea in each case was

not supported by a judicial confession and an adequate factual basis for each crime

is not in the record. The State disagrees and argues Evans’ judicial confession in

each case was alone sufficient to support his convictions and that his convictions

were further supported by Evans’ testimony at the plea hearing. We agree with the

State.

         Article 1.15 of the code of criminal procedure provides that when a defendant

pleads guilty, he cannot be convicted upon his plea alone without sufficient evidence

to support the plea. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 1.15; McGill v. State, 200 S.W.3d

325, 330 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, no pet.). A judicial confession, standing alone,

constitutes sufficient evidence to support a guilty plea. See Dinnery v. State, 592

S.W.2d 343, 353 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979) (op. on reh’g) (describing this

as “well settled”) (citations omitted); see also Menefee v. State, 287 S.W.3d 9, 13

(Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Here, the plea paperwork in each case includes the

following:

         ....

         ....

                                          –3–
      Evans argues his judicial confession was deficient in two ways. First, he

claims it was deficient because it included language stating “or as a lesser included

offense of the offense alleged in the charging instrument” and was not narrowed to

include only aggravated assault. As support, he cites Hughley v. State, No. 06-15-

00174-CR, 2016 WL 3668026 (Tex. App.—Texarkana July 9, 2016, pet. ref’d)

(mem. op., not designated for publication), which involved a judicial confession

containing somewhat similar language.         Evans argues that because Hughley

mentions other evidence of guilt in the record beyond the defendant’s judicial

confession, “Hughley suggests that it is only when there is additional evidence

beyond the boilerplate judicial confession will the evidence be sufficient to support

the plea.” But we do not read Hughley so narrowly, and, in any event, Hughley does

not find the judicial confession in that case deficient, and the case involved a

                                        –4–
different offense, procedural context, and issues on appeal.2 Contrary to Evans’

implicit suggestion otherwise, Hughley does not alter the well-settled rule that a

judicial confession, standing alone, constitutes sufficient evidence to support a guilty

plea, see Dinnery, 592 S.W.2d at 353.

        Second, Evans argues his judicial confession was deficient because the plea

paperwork in which it is contained was signed by him and his trial counsel on

different dates.3 As support, Evans cites Mayberry v. State, No. 05-92-02830-CR,

1993 WL 480212, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 19, 1993, no pet.) (mem. op., not

designated for publication), noting that in that case, we described the plea paperwork

as being “witnessed by” his counsel and arguing that here, because he and his trial

counsel signed the plea paperwork on different dates, his counsel did not “witness”

it. We are unpersuaded by Evans’ reliance on Mayberry and reject his argument that

the difference in dates made his judicial confession deficient on this record. Evans,

his trial counsel, and the State signed the plea paperwork containing Evans’ judicial

    2
      Hughley involved a judgment adjudicating guilt on a charge of assault in a family violence situation
causing bodily injury, for which the trial court originally placed Hughley on deferred adjudication
community supervision. 2016 WL 3668026, at *1. On appeal, the court decided a jurisdictional question
and an evidentiary sufficiency question, the latter of which was prompted by Hughley’s argument that the
judgment was void because there was no evidence to support his conviction. 2016 WL 3668026, at *3.
Our sister court disagreed, see id., at *3–5, and affirmed the judgment, stating, “we find that Hughley’s
responses to the trial court’s questions, taken with the judicial confession and written plea of guilt, all of
which were filed in the clerk’s record, were sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that Hughley was
guilty . . . and to enter its judgment of conviction accordingly.” Id. at *5. The judicial confession in
Hughley stated the defendant “JUDICIALLY CONFESSES and admits to committing the offense . . .
exactly as charged in the charging instrument or as a lesser included offense charged in . . . the charging
instrument.”
    3
    His counsel’s signature on the “Defense Attorney’s Approval” section of the plea paperwork is dated
May 15, 2020.
                                                    –5–
confession and stipulation before the plea proceedings began, and during the plea

proceedings, Evans confirmed to the trial court he had an opportunity to speak

privately with his attorney, had gone over the allegations and understood what he

was charged with in each case, and the trial court admitted various exhibits into

evidence, without objection by Evans or his counsel, including an exhibit consisting

of Evans’ judicial confession and stipulation in the plea paperwork in each case.4

        Based on the record before us, we conclude Evans’ judicial confession, which

includes language admitting to the commission of “[a]ggravated [a]ssault exactly as

charged in the charging instrument[,]” is sufficient to support each conviction, as a

judicial confession, standing alone, constitutes sufficient evidence to support a guilty

plea. See Dinnery, 592 S.W.2d at 353.

        We overrule Evans’ first and second issues.

        2.      Knowing and Voluntary Plea

        Next, we consider Evans’ third and fourth issues, in which he argues his plea

of guilty in each case was not knowingly and voluntarily entered because, he argues,

“[t]he record shows [he] did not understand the nature of the charges against him.”

        Unless the appellate record discloses Evans entered his guilty plea voluntarily

and understandingly, we must presume he did not, and rule accordingly. Davison v.

    4
      Although Evans’ judicial confession and stipulation was not marked as such, in the record before us,
the trial court explained its general practice that it generally considers “State’s Exhibit No. 1” to be the
“judicial confession in paragraph 20 on page 3” and “the stipulation signed by the defendant on page 4” of
the plea paperwork in each case.
                                                   –6–
State, 405 S.W.3d 682, 690 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (citing Boykin v. Alabama, 395

U.S. 238, 244 (1969)). Here, the record shows Evans did so, notwithstanding his

question, “Is it aggravated?” after the trial court sentenced him. The record reflects

the trial court provided Evans with the proper admonishments and orally informed

him he had been charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.          Evans

signed plea papers judicially confessing to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon,

entered open pleas of guilty to the charged offenses, and repeatedly told the trial

court he understood the charges.

      We overrule Evans’ third and fourth issues.

      3.     Finding of Guilt of Aggravated Assault With a Deadly Weapon

      Next, we consider Evans’ fifth and sixth issues, in which he argues that the

trial court erred in finding Evans guilty as charged in the indictments rather than

finding him not guilty or guilty of the lesser-included crime of assault because he

denied he threatened the store clerks with a knife when he testified in the plea

hearing.

      Evans’ judicial confession was introduced into evidence and was admitted

without objection. After his trial counsel told the trial court, “On guilt/innocence,

Judge, we have no evidence” and Evans would “rest and close[,]” the trial court

accepted Evans plea of guilty and his plea of true to the enhancement paragraph in

each case and found the evidence sufficient to find Evans guilty before proceeding

to sentencing.   During the sentencing portion, Evans testified, and during his

                                         –7–
testimony, he testified that on the day of the alleged offenses, he was shoplifting,

was confronted by a store clerk about it, was upset, yelled out, and had a knife, but

he denied threatening the clerk with a knife. He also explained he was asking the

trial judge for probation because he was “going through depression that day” because

he had “just buried his brother.”

      As the State argues, the trial court is the sole judge of a witness’s credibility

and the weight his testimony is to be afforded. Winfrey v. State, 393 S.W.3d 763,

768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893, 899 (Tex. Crim. App.

2010). Despite Evans’ testimony during sentencing, the record contained sufficient

evidence to support Evans’ convictions of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

We conclude the trial court did not err in finding him guilty of the charged offenses

and overrule Evans’ fifth and sixth issues.

B.    Denial of Probation

      In his ninth and tenth issues, Evans argues that, based on the facts and

circumstances surrounding the crime in question and Evans’ assertions at the time

of the plea, the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to grant him a

probationary sentence and sentenced him to eight years’ incarceration in each case.

As support, Evans cites portions of the record regarding his mental health history,

his mental status on the day in question, and his prior probation history.

                                         –8–
      The State argues that, in light of the trial court’s deadly weapon finding,

probation was not available under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article

42A.054, which states, in subsection (b):

      (b) Article 42A.053 does not apply to a defendant when it is shown that:

         (1) a deadly weapon as defined by Section 1.07, Penal Code, was
         used or exhibited during the:

             (A) commission of a felony offense; or

             (B) immediate flight from the commission of a felony offense;
             and

         (2) the defendant:

             (A) used or exhibited the deadly weapon; or

             (B) was a party to the offense and knew that a deadly weapon
             would be used or exhibited.

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42A.054(b).

      In the record before us, the trial court accepted Evans’ plea, found him guilty

of both aggravated assault charges, and made an affirmative finding of a deadly

weapon—a knife—being used or exhibited during the commission of these offenses.

As a result, the trial judge could not order community supervision under article

42A.053, see id., and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Evans

to eight years’ incarceration rather than probating his sentence.

      We overrule Evans’ ninth and tenth issues.

                                         –9–
C.       Overruling of Motion for New Trial Without Hearing

         In his seventh and eighth issues, Evans argues the trial court abused its

discretion when it denied his motion for a new trial without a hearing.

         The trial court imposed Evans’ sentence in open court on May 20, 2020.

Evans timely filed a motion for new trial.5 The motion was verified by his new

appellate counsel but was not accompanied by an affidavit.6 Seven days after the

motion was filed, the trial court signed an order that found the motion was timely

presented7 but that did not set the motion for hearing or rule on it. Thus, Evans’

motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law on August 3, 2020, seventy-

five days after sentence was imposed in open court.8

         We review a trial court’s refusal to hold a hearing on a defendant’s motion for

new trial for an abuse of discretion. Hobbs v. State, 298 S.W.3d 193, 200 (Tex.

     5
     See TEX. R. APP. P. 21.4(a) (“The defendant may file a motion for new trial before, but no later than
30 days after, the date when the trial court imposes or suspends sentence in open court.”).
     6
     In addition to stating his appellate counsel’s name, her age as over eighteen years, and her competency
to make the attestation, the verification by Evans’ appellate counsel stated:
         I am an attorney licensed to practice law in Texas, and counsel of record for [Evans] in
         connection with his motion for new trial and appeal. I have read the above Motion for New
         Trial.

         I hereby certify and swear that the statements and factual representations contained in the
         [motion] are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

No issue is presented regarding whether Evans could support his motion for new trial by a verification from
his appellate counsel, rather than by affidavit. We assume, for purposes of this appeal, he could do so.
     7
     See TEX. R. APP. P. 21.6 (“The defendant must present the motion for new trial to the trial court within
10 days of filing it, unless the trial court in its discretion permits it to be presented and heard within 75 days
from the date when the court imposes or suspends sentence in open court.”).
     8
     See TEX. R. APP. P. 21.8(a) (“The court must rule on a motion for new trial within 75 days after
imposing or suspending sentence in open court.”); Montelongo v. State, 623 S.W.3d 819, 823 (Tex. 2021)
(same, citing rule).
                                                     –10–
Crim. App. 2009); Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 339 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). We

will reverse only when the trial judge’s decision was so clearly wrong as to lie

outside that zone within which reasonable persons might disagree. Smith, 286

S.W.3d at 339.

      A hearing is not required “when the matters raised in the motion for new trial

are subject to being determined from the record.” Reyes v. State, 849 S.W.2d 812,

816 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). But a trial judge abuses his discretion by failing to

hold a hearing on a motion for new trial “when an accused presents a motion for new

trial raising matters which are not determinable from the record, upon which the

accused could be entitled to relief.” Id.; see Hobbs, 298 S.W.3d at 199 (noting trial

court’s discretion extends only to the determination of whether defendant raised

grounds not determinable from the record and grounds reasonably showing he could

potentially be entitled to relief). In such circumstances, because an unrestricted

requirement of a hearing on matters not determinable from the record could lead to

“fishing expeditions,” the court of criminal appeals has repeatedly stated that, “‘as a

prerequisite to obtaining a hearing,’ and ‘as a matter of pleading,’ motions for new

trial must be supported by an affidavit of either the accused or someone else

specifically showing the truth of the grounds of attack.” Id. (quoting McIntire v.

State, 698 S.W.2d 652, 658 (Tex. Crim. App.1985)).

                                        –11–
       In this case, Evans’ verified motion for new trial stated, in pertinent part:9

       The undersigned attorney is of the opinion that Mr. Evans’ plea of
       guilty was not knowingly and voluntarily entered. Based on
       conversations with Mr. Evans, counsel is of the opinion that Mr. Evans
       entered his plea due to the misadvice of counsel that if he entered a plea
       he would receive a sentence of probation, despite the fact that there was
       no plea bargain before the court. Counsel is of the opinion that Mr.
       Evans would not have entered his plea had he been properly advised.

       Citing Reyes, 849 S.W.2d at 816, Evans argues the trial court abused its

discretion in denying him a hearing because he raised a matter not determinable from

the record which could entitle him to relief—namely, that his “plea was the result of

the ineffective assistance of counsel[,]” that he was misadvised he “would receive a

sentence of probation if he entered a plea,” and that absent such misadvice, he

“would not have pled guilty to the charges.” The State argues that even if Evans’

motion sufficiently raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the trial court

could have reasonably refused to hear the motion by concluding Evans did not allege

grounds undeterminable from the record that would entitle him to relief.

       We disagree with Evans and conclude his reliance on Reyes is misplaced

under the circumstances. First, his motion was not accompanied by an affidavit

specifically showing the truth of the grounds raised, as is required, both as a matter

of pleading and as a prerequisite to obtaining a hearing. See Reyes, 849 S.W.2d at

816. Even though we have assumed for purposes of this appeal that Evans could

   9
      The motion also stated counsel’s opinion regarding Evans’ sentence, which she described as
excessive, but Evans has not presented any such issue on appeal.
                                             –12–
support his motion for new trial by a verification from his appellate counsel, rather

than by affidavit, substantively, the verification fails to show the truth of what Evans

alleged—that he was misadvised by his trial counsel that he would receive a sentence

of probation if he entered a plea and would not have entered his plea had he not been

so misadvised.

         Moreover, even if the verification adequately supported Evans’ ground of

attack, his motion did not raise a matter that was not determinable from the record.

When Evans presented his motion for new trial, the trial court was already aware of

the plea proceedings, which included his trial counsel’s participation, the court’s

own admonishments, and Evans’ on-the-record statement—before he made his

guilty plea—that he understood the punishment range involved imprisonment.

         Based on the record before us, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its

discretion in allowing Evans’ motion for new trial to be overruled by operation of

law without a hearing. See Reyes, 849 S.W.2d at 816; Colone v. State, 573 S.W.3d

249, 260 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019);10 Holden v. State, 201 S.W.3d 761, 764 (Tex.

    10
       In Colone, 573 S.W.3d at 260, the court overruled defendant’s complaints the trial court erred in
failing to hold a hearing on his motion for new trial when the motion was supported by affidavits containing
only bare assertions without alleging supporting facts to show the assertions were true. The court stated:
         [A] party’s affidavits must “specifically show[ ] the truth of the grounds of attack.” Bare
         assertions, without supporting factual allegations, are not sufficient to entitle a party to a
         hearing, and a trial court is not required to hold a hearing to conduct a “fishing expedition.”
         Appellant’s affidavits made a number of bare assertions without alleging supporting facts
         to show that those assertions were true. . . . The trial court was not required to engage in a
         fishing expedition based upon the self-serving speculation of Appellant’s defense
         attorneys.

                                                     –13–
Crim. App. 2006);11 Kiser v. State, 788 S.W.2d 909, 914–15 (Tex. App.—Dallas

1990, pet. ref’d).12 We overrule his seventh and eighth issues.

D.        Requested Judgment Modifications

          Both parties ask that we modify the judgments in certain respects. In his

eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth issues, Evans seeks modifications regarding the

$340 in court costs imposed in each judgment. In a cross-point, the State seeks a

modification to the portion of each judgment that concerns each indictment’s first

enhancement paragraph.

          1.    DNA Testing Fee

          In his eleventh and twelfth issues, Evans argues we should remove the $50

DNA testing fee included in the criminal court fee dockets in both cases because it

was unauthorized, as the statute authorizing the fee was repealed effective January

1, 2020, the day before the offenses for which he was convicted. The State agrees.

Id. (footnotes omitted). Also, albeit in a different context, in Najar v. State, 618 S.W.3d 366, 373 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2021), the court stated that one way an affidavit by defense counsel might be interpreted is
“with skepticism because they are second-hand renditions prepared by advocates in anticipation of a motion
for new trial.”
     11
      In Holden, 201 S.W.3d at 764, the court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in deciding a
motion for new trial based on affidavits by defendant and her trial counsel when affiants had already
appeared in trial court and the trial judge was familiar with history and facts of the case.
     12
       In Kiser, 788 S.W.2d at 914–15, a case involving alleged juror misconduct, the court concluded there
was no error in allowing defendant’s original motion for new trial to be overruled by operation of law
without a hearing when defendant presented no issues requiring proof to be developed outside the record
and when the motion was not supported by the affidavit of a juror or another person in a position to know
the facts surrounding the alleged misconduct.
                                                   –14–
      We review the assessment of court costs on appeal to determine if there is a

basis for the cost. Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385, 390 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

Section 51.608 of the Government Code provides:

      Notwithstanding any other law that establishes the amount of a court
      cost collected by the clerk of a district, county, or statutory county court
      from a defendant in a criminal proceeding based on the law in effect on
      the date the offense was committed, the amount of a court cost imposed
      on the defendant in a criminal proceeding must be the amount
      established under the law in effect on the date the defendant is
      convicted of the offense.

TEX. GOV’T CODE § 51.608.

      Previously, article 102.020 of the code of criminal procedure—now

repealed—required the assessment of costs for DNA testing in certain criminal

cases. See Act of May 23, 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., ch. 1352, 2019 Tex. Gen. Laws

3982 (Senate Bill 346, effective January 1, 2020).

      Both parties agree that in light of Senate Bill 346, no basis exists for the $50

DNA testing fee in this case, and the trial court should not have assessed it. See TEX.

GOV’T CODE § 51.608. We agree as well, as the offenses for which Evans was

convicted were committed on January 2, 2022, meaning the former article 102.020

was not in effect as to Evans at the time of conviction. Cf. Shuler v. State, 650

S.W.3d 683, 689 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2022, no pet.) (concluding trial court properly

                                         –15–
assessed the DNA testing fee under circumstances distinguishable from those

here).13

         2.     Duplicative Costs

         In his thirteenth issue, Evans argues that because he was convicted of two

offenses in a single criminal action, the trial court could assess each court cost or fee

only once against him, rather than assessing duplicative costs in both cases.14 See

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 102.073(a) (“In a single criminal action in which a

defendant is convicted of two or more offenses or of multiple counts of the same

offense, the court may assess each court cost or fee only once against the

defendant.”). He also notes the two offenses for which he was convicted were the

same degree of offense.15 The State agrees with both points.

         Thus, both sides agree the trial court should not have assessed duplicative

costs under the circumstances. Their only disagreement on this issue concerns the

trial court cause number in which they argue we should delete the duplicative costs.

    13
       In Shuler, we noted, “Senate Bill 346 specifically provided that ‘[a]n offense committed before the
effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect on the date the offense was committed, and the
former law is continued in effect for that purpose.’” 650 S.W.3d at 688 n.10 (citing Act of May 23, 2019,
86th Leg., R.S., ch. 1352, § 5.01, 2019 Tex. Gen. Laws 3981, 4035). We concluded that “[b]ecause [Shuler]
committed the offenses for which he was placed on deferred adjudication prior to the effective date of the
Act, the former law was still in effect as to [him] at the time he was placed on deferred adjudication and,
thus, it is the law that governs whether court costs were properly imposed against him.” Id. at 688–89.
    14
      Each criminal court docket fee sheet reflects the same costs imposed, which totaled $340, excluding
a $25 installment plan fee.
    15
      Although it does not apply here, we note that in cases where a defendant is convicted of two or more
offenses involving different categories of offense, the trial court would have had to determine each court
cost or fee using “using the highest category of offense that is possible based on the defendant’s
convictions.” See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 102.073(b).
                                                  –16–
Evans asks that we delete the duplicative costs from either trial court cause number

F20-51046-I or F20-51047-I, while the State argues we should delete them from trial

court cause number F20-51047-I, the higher of the two cause numbers.

      We agree with the State. See Johnson v. State, No. 05-19-00641-CR, No. 05-

19-00642-CR, 2020 WL 4745552, at *5–6 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 17, 2020, no

pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“[W]hen, as in this case, the

convictions are for the same category of offense and the costs are the same, court

costs should be based on the lowest trial court cause number.”) (citations omitted).

      3.     First Enhancement Paragraph

      Finally, in a cross-point, the State asks us to modify both judgments to reflect

that Evans pleaded true to the first enhancement paragraph and that the trial court

found it true. Evans did not file a reply brief and thus did not respond to the State’s

cross-point, but as the State correctly notes, the record reflects that Evans did plead

true to the first enhancement paragraph, and the trial court found it true.

E.    Modification of Judgments

      We may modify the trial court’s judgment to make the record speak the truth

when we have the necessary information to do so. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v.

State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (en banc) (refusing to limit the

authority of the courts of appeals to reform judgments to only those situations

involving mistakes of a clerical nature); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529–30

(Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d) (noting an appellate court’s authority to reform

                                         –17–
incorrect judgments does not depend upon the request of any party or on whether a

party has or has not objected in the trial court).

      Based on the record here, we sustain Evans’ eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth

issues, sustain the State’s cross-point, and reform the judgments as follows:

      Judgment in Cause No. F20-51047-I

           Under “Court Costs,” delete $340 and insert $0; and
           After “1st Enhancement Paragraph” and “Finding on First
            Enhancement Paragraph,” delete “N/A” and add “TRUE.”

      Judgment in Cause No. F20-51046-I

           Under “Court Costs,” delete $340 and insert $290; and
           After “1st Enhancement Paragraph” and “Finding on First
            Enhancement Paragraph,” delete “N/A” and add “TRUE.”

                                   II. CONCLUSION

      As reformed, we affirm the judgments.

                                             /Ken Molberg/
                                             KEN MOLBERG
                                             JUSTICE

Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
200590F.U05

                                          –18–
                                  S
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

DAMON EVANS, Appellant                       On Appeal from the Criminal District
                                             Court No. 2, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-20-00590-CR          V.               Trial Court Cause No. F20-51047-I.
                                             Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 Molberg. Justices Reichek and
                                             Garcia participating.

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

          Under “Court Costs,” delete $340 and insert $0; and

          After “1st Enhancement Paragraph” and “Finding on First
           Enhancement Paragraph,” delete “N/A” and add “TRUE.”

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 23rd day of February, 2023.

                                      –19–
                                  S
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

DAMON EVANS, Appellant                       On Appeal from the Criminal District
                                             Court No. 2, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-20-00591-CR          V.               Trial Court Cause No. F20-51046-I.
                                             Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 Molberg. Justices Reichek and
                                             Garcia participating.

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

          Under “Court Costs,” delete $340 and insert $290; and

          After “1st Enhancement Paragraph” and “Finding on First
           Enhancement Paragraph,” delete “N/A” and add “TRUE.”

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 23rd day of February, 2023.

                                      –20–