Arman Dante Henderson v. State

Affirmed as modified; Opinion Filed October 4, 2018.
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-18-00189-CR
ARMAN DANTE HENDERSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F17-71372
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Lang, Fillmore, and Schenck
Opinion by Justice Lang
Appellant Arman Dante Henderson was charged by indictment with “possess[ing] with
intent to deliver, a controlled substance, to wit: 5-fluoro ADB, in an amount of less than 1 gram,”
within 1,000 feet of the premises of a school or youth center. Appellant waived a jury and entered
a non-negotiated plea of guilty to that offense and a plea of true to an enhancement paragraph.
Following a bench trial, the trial court convicted appellant of the charged offense, found the
enhancement paragraph true, and assessed punishment at twelve years’ imprisonment.
In a single issue on appeal, appellant asserts “[t]he trial court’s judgment should be
modified to correctly reflect that the judge presiding over Appellant’s plea hearing was the
‘Honorable Teresa Hawthorne,’ not the Honorable Steven Autry, and that Appellant’s defense
attorney was ‘William J. Fay,’ not William Faye.” The State agrees.
I. APPLICABLE LAW
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); Abron v. State, 997 S.W.2d 281, 282 (Tex. App.—
Dallas 1998, pet. ref’d); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b) (court of appeals may “modify the trial
court’s judgment and affirm it as modified”).
II. APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS
The trial court’s judgment states in part “Judge Presiding: Hon. Steven Autry” and
“Attorney for Defendant: William Faye.” However, the record unambiguously shows, and the
parties agree, that the presiding judge in this case was the Honorable Teresa Hawthorne and
appellant’s counsel was William J. Fay. Further, the State asserts in part that it “joins in Appellant’s
request” for the modifications described above.
We decide appellant’s issue in his favor. Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgment
as requested by appellant in his issue described above.
III. CONCLUSION
We decide in favor of appellant on his sole issue. We modify the trial court’s judgment to
state (1) “Judge Presiding: Hon. Teresa Hawthorne,” rather than “Judge Presiding: Hon. Steven
Autry,” and (2) “Attorney for Defendant: William J. Fay,” rather than “Attorney for Defendant:
William Faye.” As modified, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
/Douglas S. Lang/
DOUGLAS S. LANG
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
180189F.U05
–2–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
ARMAN DANTE HENDERSON, On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District
Appellant Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F17-71372.
No. 05-18-00189-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang, Justices
Fillmore and Schenck participating.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED
to state (1) “Judge Presiding: Hon. Teresa Hawthorne,” rather than “Judge Presiding: Hon.
Steven Autry,” and (2) “Attorney for Defendant: William J. Fay,” rather than “Attorney for
Defendant: William Faye.”
As MODIFIED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 4th day of October, 2018.
–3–