Abdulsatar Abdulrahman v. the State of Texas

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
(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.”
–2–
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.
/Cory L. Carlyle/
210452f.u05 CORY L. CARLYLE
Do Not Publish JUSTICE
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
ABDULSATAR ABDULRAHMAN, On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial
Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F18-23889-W.
No. 05-21-00452-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle.
Justices Myers and Goldstein
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 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 1st day of August, 2022.
–4–