AFFIR1’Vl as modified; Opinion issued October 4, 2012
In The
nnrt uf \pnata
Fiftt! t)uitnrt uf c!1rxas at alla
No. 05-1 1-00684-CR
GEREMY THOMAS HENDERSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F08-73646-Y
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices O’Neill, FitzGerald, and Lang-Miers
Opinion By Justice FitzGerald
Geremy Thomas Henderson appeals from the adjudication of his guilt for assault involving
family violence. See TEx. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(a)(l) (West 2011); TEx. FAM. CODE ANN.
§ 71.004(1) (West 2008). The trial court assessed punishment at eight years’ imprisonment. In four
points of error, appellant contends the judgment should be modified to show: (1) he pleaded true to
some of the allegations in the State’s motion to adjudicate; (2) the conditions of community
supervision he was found to have violated; (3) the correct name ofthe attorney representing the State
at the adjudication hearing; and (4) the correct spelling of appellant’s name. We modify the trial
court’s judgment adjudicating guilt and affirm as modified. The background of the case and the
evidence admitted at trial are well known to the parties, and we therefore limit recitation of the facts.
We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of /\ppellate Procedure 47.4 because
the lan to be applied in the case is well settled.
in its motion to adjudicate, the State alleged appellant violated conditions B, C, D, F. 11. 1,
J, K. M, N, 0. and P of his community supervision. During a hearing on the motion, the State
withdrew the allegations concerning conditions C and I. Appellant pleaded true to violating
conditions 13. Fl. J. K. and 0. and not true to violating conditions D. F. M. N, and P After hearing
.
testimony from witnesses and appellant, the trial court found appellant violated conditions 13, 1), F,
1-1. .1, N, 0, and P. The judgment states appellant pleaded not true to the allegations in the motion
to adjudicate and that the trial court found appellant violated the conditions ol community
supervision as set out in the motion. Thus. the judgment is incorrect. We sustain appellant’s first
and second points of error.
The record shows Don Guidry represented the State during the hearing on the motion to
adjudicate, and that the correct spelling of appellant’s first name is “Geremy.” Thejudgment states
appellants first name as Germey” and that Lea Thomson was the state’s attorney. Thus the
judgment is incorrect. We sustain appellants third and fourth points of error.
We modify the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt to show (1) appellant’s true name
is Geremy Thomas Henderson; (2) the attorney for the State is Don Guidry; (3) appellant pleaded
true to violating conditions B. H, .1. K. and 0 and not true to conditions D. F.M. N, and P; and (4)
the trial court found appellant violated conditions B, D, F. H, J. N. 0. and P of community
supervision. See TEX. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27—28 (Tex. Crim. App.
1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529-30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d).
As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
KE RRY P. ITZGERALD
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEx. R. App. P. 47
1 10684F.U05
nnrt uf ppLab3
.ift1! Ji!itrirt Ut QrXWi It Dullt
JUDGMENT
GEREMY T[ION AS II ENDERSON, Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Appellant No. 7 of Dallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No.
F08-7S646-Y).
No. 05-1 l-00684-(R V. Opinion delivered by Justice FitzGerald.
Justices O’Neill and Lang-Miers
THE STATE C)F TEXAS. Appellee participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt is
MODIFIED as follows:
The judgment adjudicating guilt is modified to show appellant’s true name is “Geremy
Thomas Henderson.”
The section entitled Attorney for State” is modified to show Don Guidry.”
The section entitled Plea to Motion to Adjudicate’ is modified to show ‘1rue to
conditions B. 1-1, J. K. 0 and Not True to conditions D. F. M. N. P.’
The section entitled “(5) While on community supervision” is modified to show “(5)
While on community supervision. Defendant violated conditions B. D. F. 11. J. N. ,
P of
community supervision.”
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.
Judgment entered October 4. 2012.
KFRITGEALD
JUSThSE