Jeffrey Dale Troxel v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)
• Decided: April 7, 2026
• Docket: 06-25-00143-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-25-00143-CR

JEFFREY DALE TROXEL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 5th District Court Bowie County, Texas Trial Court No. 25F0079-005

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jeffrey Dale Troxel entered an open plea of guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by

a felon. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 46.04 (Supp.). After finding the State’s habitual

offender-punishment enhancement allegations true, a Bowie County jury assessed a sentence of

fifty years’ imprisonment.

On appeal, Troxel raises a single complaint, arguing that the prosecutor’s improper

closing argument “enflamed the juror’s sympathy for law enforcement officers.” In our cause

number 06-05-00142-CR, Troxel raised this same complaint on appeal from his conviction for

assault on a peace officer. For the same reasons stated in our opinion in cause number 06-05-

00142-CR, we overrule Troxel’s sole point of error for lack of preservation.

Even so, this Court may “modify the trial court’s judgment and affirm it as modified.”

TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); see Anthony v. State, 531 S.W.3d 739, 743 (Tex. App.—Texarkana

2016, no pet.) (citing Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v.

State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d) (en banc)) (“This Court has the

power to correct and modify the judgment of the trial court for accuracy when the necessary data

and information are part of the record.”). “The authority of an appellate court to reform incorrect

judgments is not dependent upon the request of any party, nor does it turn on the question of

whether a party has or has not objected in the trial court.” Anthony, 531 S.W.3d at 743 (quoting

Asberry, 813 S.W.2d at 529–30).

In reviewing the appellate record, we noticed that the State filed habitual offender-

punishment enhancement allegations. Specifically, the State alleged that Troxel was previously

2 convicted of two felonies—robbery with a deadly weapon in 2002 and evading arrest with a

motor vehicle in 2020. Troxel pled “[n]ot true” to the robbery enhancement allegation and

“true” to the allegation of evading arrest. The jury found both allegations true. Yet, the

judgment mistakenly omits Troxel’s pleas and the jury’s findings on these allegations, stating

that they were inapplicable. As a result, we modify the trial court’s judgment.

We modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect that Troxel pled “NOT TRUE” to the first

punishment enhancement allegation and “TRUE” to the second punishment enhancement

allegation. We also modify the judgment to show that the jury found both of the State’s

punishment enhancement allegations true.

As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Scott E. Stevens Chief Justice

Date Submitted: April 6, 2026 Date Decided: April 7, 2026

Do Not Publish