Arthur Jordan v. State
This text of Arthur Jordan v. State (Arthur Jordan v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS
§ ARTHUR JORDAN, No. 08-13-00301-CR § Appellant, Appeal from § v. 282rd District Court § THE STATE OF TEXAS, of Dallas County, Texas § Appellee. (TC # F-1271156-T) §
OPINION
Arthur Jordan appeals his conviction of aggravated sexual assault with a deadly weapon.
A jury found Appellant guilty, found the enhancement paragraph true, and assessed his
punishment at imprisonment for five years. We modify the judgment and affirm.
REFORMATION OF THE JUDGMENT
Appellant raises two issues on appeal asserting that the judgment must be modified.
First, he contends that the judgment incorrectly states “N/A” with respect to Appellant’s plea and
the jury’s finding on the enhancement paragraph. Second, he argues that the judgment
incorrectly identifies the prosecutor as Kelly Benavides. The State agrees that the judgment
should be modified to correct these mistakes.
In a case where the record provides the necessary information to correct inaccuracies in a
trial court’s judgment, we have the authority to modify the judgment to speak the truth. See TEX.R.APP.P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993)(discussing
former TEX.R.APP.P. 80); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529-30 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1991,
pet. ref’d)(same). The indictment alleged that Appellant had one prior conviction. Appellant
entered a plea of “not true” to the enhancement paragraph and the jury found it “true.” The
record also reflects that the prosecutor was Mark Scott rather than Kelly Benavides. Issues One
and Two are sustained. We therefore modify the judgment to reflect that Appellant entered a
plea of “not true” to the enhancement paragraph, the jury found the enhancement paragraph
“true,” and Mark Scott was the prosecutor. The judgment, as so modified, is affirmed.
February 11, 2015 ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice
Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
(Do Not Publish)
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Arthur Jordan v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arthur-jordan-v-state-texapp-2015.