Gonzalo Bustos v. the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 28, 2024
Docket05-23-00651-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Gonzalo Bustos v. the State of Texas (Gonzalo Bustos v. the State of Texas) 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.

Bluebook
Gonzalo Bustos v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

AFFIRMED as MODIFIED and Opinion Filed August 28, 2024

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00651-CR

GONZALO BUSTOS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F22-56768-K

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Garcia Appellant was indicted for aggravated robbery but the jury found him guilty

of the lesser-included offense of robbery. The jury assessed punishment at twenty-

two years in prison and a $5000 fine.

In a single issue, appellant argues the Court should modify the judgment to

reflect the correct statute for the offense. The State agrees, and in a cross-point,

argues the judgment should also be modified to reflect the correct name of the

prosecutor.

We sustain appellant’s issue and the State’s cross-point and modify the

judgment as requested. As modified, the judgment is affirmed. We may modify a judgment to make the record speak the truth when we have

the information necessary to do so. See 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); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b). The judgment reads “29.03 Penal

Code” under “Statute for Offense.” The record, however, shows the jury convicted

appellant of the lesser-included offense of robbery. We therefore modify the

judgment to reflect that appellant was convicted of robbery under TEX. PENAL CODE

ANN. § 29.02.

Further, the judgment currently states that Caitlin Paver represented the State.

But the record reflects that Marissa Hatchett prosecuted the trial. We modify the

judgment to reflect that Marissa Hatchett appeared as the attorney for the State.

As modified, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

/Dennise Garcia/ DENNISE GARCIA JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 230651F.U05

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

GONZALO BUSTOS, Appellant On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-23-00651-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F22-56768-K. Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Pedersen, III and Smith participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED to reflect that appellant was convicted under TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.02 and Marissa Hatchett appeared as the attorney for the State.

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered August 28, 2024

–3–

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Asberry v. State
813 S.W.2d 526 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Bigley v. State
865 S.W.2d 26 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Gonzalo Bustos v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalo-bustos-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2024.