AFFIRMED as MODIFIED and Opinion Filed June 24, 2024
S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00394-CR
KHALID LUKMAN WILLIAMS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F21-54264-L
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Reichek, Goldstein, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Goldstein Khalid Lukman Williams appeals his aggravated assault causing bodily injury
with a deadly weapon conviction. A jury convicted appellant, and the trial court
sentenced him to twenty-five years’ confinement. In a single issue, appellant argues
his pleas of true to two enhancement paragraphs were involuntary because the trial
court failed to admonish him on the range of punishment. In a single cross-issue,
the State asks that we reform the judgment to reflect appellant’s pleas of true and the
trial court’s findings on the enhancement paragraphs. As reformed, we affirm the
trial court’s judgment. In May 2021, appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated assault
with a deadly weapon. The indictment alleged appellant intentionally, knowingly,
and recklessly caused bodily injury to the complainant by shooting him with a
firearm. The indictment further alleged two enhancements: (1) a March 2011
retaliation conviction and (2) an October 2004 assault of a public servant conviction.
At a pretrial hearing in March 2023, the prosecutor read the indictment,
including the two enhancement paragraphs, aloud in appellant’s presence. Defense
counsel stated that appellant pled not guilty to the charges and asked to proceed to
trial. Counsel stated the “last offer was 15 years, which was declined by” appellant.
In response to a question from counsel, appellant stated he still wished to decline
that offer.
During voir dire, the prosecutor discussed the possibility that the offense
could be “enhanceable to that first-degree punishment range” of “[f]ive to 99 or life
or even 25 to life” depending on whether there were “prior times a person has been
to the penitentiary.” Later during voir dire, defense counsel stated that “right now,
the punishment range is two to 20” but “if we get to the punishment range” there
“may be evidence that leads to a potential life.”
At trial, following the jury’s guilty verdict, appellant elected to have the trial
court assess punishment instead of the jury. The prosecutor read the enhancement
paragraphs, and appellant pled true to the two enhancements. The trial court
admitted evidence including the judgments from appellant’s convictions for
–2– retaliation and assault of a public servant. At the conclusion of the punishment
hearing, the trial court assessed punishment at twenty-five years’ confinement. This
appeal followed.
In a single issue, appellant argues his pleas of true to two enhancement
paragraphs were involuntary because the trial court failed to admonish him on the
range of punishment. The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires a trial court
to admonish a defendant in a felony case on the applicable range of punishment
before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere; it does not, however, apply to
a plea of true to an enhancement paragraph. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art.
26.13(a)(1); Sylvester v. State, 615 S.W.2d 734, 736–37 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1981); Cobourn v. State, No. 05-11-00173-CR, 2013 WL 363746, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Dallas Jan. 31, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). An
admonishment on the punishment range for a plea of true is discretionary with the
trial court and is not required under Texas law. Harvey v. State, 611 S.W.2d 108,
112 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (op. on reh’g); Cobourn, 2013 WL 363746, at *1.
Appellant pleaded not guilty to the primary offense in this case; therefore, he
was not given the admonishments associated with entering a guilty plea. After the
jury found him guilty, appellant then pleaded true to the two enhancements. No
error resulted from the trial court’s failure to admonish appellant with respect to the
punishment range associated with his pleas of true, and his pleas were not
involuntary. See Harvey, 611 S.W.2d at 112; Cobourn, 2013 WL 363746, at *1.
–3– Moreover, we note that, after appellant was arraigned, defense counsel
informed the trial court appellant rejected a fifteen-year plea agreement. And during
voir dire, the prosecutor could be “enhanceable to that first-degree punishment
range” of “five to 99 or life or even 25 to life” depending on whether there were
“prior times a person has been to the penitentiary,” and defense counsel stated that
“right now, the punishment range is two to 20” but “if we get to the punishment
range” there could be “evidence that leads to a potential life.” Thus, the record
indicates appellant knew the enhanced range of punishment before pleading true to
the enhancement paragraphs. We overrule appellant’s sole issue.
In a single cross-issue, the State asks that we reform the judgment to reflect
appellant’s pleas of true and the trial court’s findings on the enhancement
paragraphs. The record reflects that, following the jury’s guilty verdict, appellant
pled true to the two enhancement paragraphs and elected to have the trial court assess
punishment. Penal Code Section 12.42(d) provides that an offender convicted of a
felony other than an ordinary state jail felony who has two previous, sequential
convictions for felonies other than ordinary state jail felonies is subject to a
punishment range of 25 to 99 years or life in prison. TEX. PENAL CODE § 12.42(d);
see State v. Kahookele, 640 S.W.3d 221, 224 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). The trial court
sentenced appellant to twenty-five years’ confinement, the minimum sentence in
such a circumstance. See id. Thus, the record further indicates that the trial court
found the enhancements true and sentenced appellant accordingly. The judgment,
–4– however, states “N/A” beside the headings “Plea to 1st Enhancement Paragraph,”
“Plea to 2nd Enhancement Paragraph,” “Findings on 1st Enhancement Paragraph,”
and “Findings on 2nd Enhancement Paragraph.”
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); Abron v. State, 997 S.W.2d 281, 282 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, pet. ref’d);
see also TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b) (court of appeals may “modify the trial court’s
judgment and affirm it as modified”).
When the trial court alone assesses a defendant’s punishment, the court is not
required to read the enhancement paragraphs or the findings to the defendant.
Burton v. State, No. 05-18-00608-CR, 2019 WL 3543580, at *6 (Tex. App.—Dallas
Aug. 5, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Seeker v. State,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
AFFIRMED as MODIFIED and Opinion Filed June 24, 2024
S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00394-CR
KHALID LUKMAN WILLIAMS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F21-54264-L
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Reichek, Goldstein, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Goldstein Khalid Lukman Williams appeals his aggravated assault causing bodily injury
with a deadly weapon conviction. A jury convicted appellant, and the trial court
sentenced him to twenty-five years’ confinement. In a single issue, appellant argues
his pleas of true to two enhancement paragraphs were involuntary because the trial
court failed to admonish him on the range of punishment. In a single cross-issue,
the State asks that we reform the judgment to reflect appellant’s pleas of true and the
trial court’s findings on the enhancement paragraphs. As reformed, we affirm the
trial court’s judgment. In May 2021, appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated assault
with a deadly weapon. The indictment alleged appellant intentionally, knowingly,
and recklessly caused bodily injury to the complainant by shooting him with a
firearm. The indictment further alleged two enhancements: (1) a March 2011
retaliation conviction and (2) an October 2004 assault of a public servant conviction.
At a pretrial hearing in March 2023, the prosecutor read the indictment,
including the two enhancement paragraphs, aloud in appellant’s presence. Defense
counsel stated that appellant pled not guilty to the charges and asked to proceed to
trial. Counsel stated the “last offer was 15 years, which was declined by” appellant.
In response to a question from counsel, appellant stated he still wished to decline
that offer.
During voir dire, the prosecutor discussed the possibility that the offense
could be “enhanceable to that first-degree punishment range” of “[f]ive to 99 or life
or even 25 to life” depending on whether there were “prior times a person has been
to the penitentiary.” Later during voir dire, defense counsel stated that “right now,
the punishment range is two to 20” but “if we get to the punishment range” there
“may be evidence that leads to a potential life.”
At trial, following the jury’s guilty verdict, appellant elected to have the trial
court assess punishment instead of the jury. The prosecutor read the enhancement
paragraphs, and appellant pled true to the two enhancements. The trial court
admitted evidence including the judgments from appellant’s convictions for
–2– retaliation and assault of a public servant. At the conclusion of the punishment
hearing, the trial court assessed punishment at twenty-five years’ confinement. This
appeal followed.
In a single issue, appellant argues his pleas of true to two enhancement
paragraphs were involuntary because the trial court failed to admonish him on the
range of punishment. The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires a trial court
to admonish a defendant in a felony case on the applicable range of punishment
before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere; it does not, however, apply to
a plea of true to an enhancement paragraph. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art.
26.13(a)(1); Sylvester v. State, 615 S.W.2d 734, 736–37 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1981); Cobourn v. State, No. 05-11-00173-CR, 2013 WL 363746, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Dallas Jan. 31, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). An
admonishment on the punishment range for a plea of true is discretionary with the
trial court and is not required under Texas law. Harvey v. State, 611 S.W.2d 108,
112 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (op. on reh’g); Cobourn, 2013 WL 363746, at *1.
Appellant pleaded not guilty to the primary offense in this case; therefore, he
was not given the admonishments associated with entering a guilty plea. After the
jury found him guilty, appellant then pleaded true to the two enhancements. No
error resulted from the trial court’s failure to admonish appellant with respect to the
punishment range associated with his pleas of true, and his pleas were not
involuntary. See Harvey, 611 S.W.2d at 112; Cobourn, 2013 WL 363746, at *1.
–3– Moreover, we note that, after appellant was arraigned, defense counsel
informed the trial court appellant rejected a fifteen-year plea agreement. And during
voir dire, the prosecutor could be “enhanceable to that first-degree punishment
range” of “five to 99 or life or even 25 to life” depending on whether there were
“prior times a person has been to the penitentiary,” and defense counsel stated that
“right now, the punishment range is two to 20” but “if we get to the punishment
range” there could be “evidence that leads to a potential life.” Thus, the record
indicates appellant knew the enhanced range of punishment before pleading true to
the enhancement paragraphs. We overrule appellant’s sole issue.
In a single cross-issue, the State asks that we reform the judgment to reflect
appellant’s pleas of true and the trial court’s findings on the enhancement
paragraphs. The record reflects that, following the jury’s guilty verdict, appellant
pled true to the two enhancement paragraphs and elected to have the trial court assess
punishment. Penal Code Section 12.42(d) provides that an offender convicted of a
felony other than an ordinary state jail felony who has two previous, sequential
convictions for felonies other than ordinary state jail felonies is subject to a
punishment range of 25 to 99 years or life in prison. TEX. PENAL CODE § 12.42(d);
see State v. Kahookele, 640 S.W.3d 221, 224 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). The trial court
sentenced appellant to twenty-five years’ confinement, the minimum sentence in
such a circumstance. See id. Thus, the record further indicates that the trial court
found the enhancements true and sentenced appellant accordingly. The judgment,
–4– however, states “N/A” beside the headings “Plea to 1st Enhancement Paragraph,”
“Plea to 2nd Enhancement Paragraph,” “Findings on 1st Enhancement Paragraph,”
and “Findings on 2nd Enhancement Paragraph.”
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); Abron v. State, 997 S.W.2d 281, 282 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, pet. ref’d);
see also TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b) (court of appeals may “modify the trial court’s
judgment and affirm it as modified”).
When the trial court alone assesses a defendant’s punishment, the court is not
required to read the enhancement paragraphs or the findings to the defendant.
Burton v. State, No. 05-18-00608-CR, 2019 WL 3543580, at *6 (Tex. App.—Dallas
Aug. 5, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Seeker v. State,
186 S.W.3d 36, 39 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. ref’d).
We have the necessary information in the record to modify the judgment to
reflect pleas and findings of true on both enhancement paragraphs. We therefore
modify the judgment to read “TRUE” beside the headings “Plea to 1st Enhancement
Paragraph,” “Plea to 2nd Enhancement Paragraph,” “Findings on 1st Enhancement
Paragraph,” and “Findings on 2nd Enhancement Paragraph.” We sustain the State’s
cross-issue.
–5– As reformed, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/Bonnie Lee Goldstein/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE
Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
230394F.U05
–6– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
KHALID LUKMAN WILLIAMS, On Appeal from the Criminal District Appellant Court No. 5, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F21-54264-L. No. 05-23-00394-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Goldstein. Justices Reichek and THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Garcia participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows: “N/A” is deleted and the word “TRUE” is inserted beside the headings “Plea to 1st Enhancement Paragraph,” “Plea to 2nd Enhancement Paragraph,” “Findings on 1st Enhancement Paragraph,” and “Findings on 2nd Enhancement Paragraph.” As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered June 24, 2024
–7–