Robert Lynn Hall v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 263rd District Court of Harris County (majority)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued October 6, 2011. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-10-00620-CR ROBERT LYNN HALL, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 263rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1213142 MEMORANDUM OPINION Robert Lynn Hall was charged by indictment of aggravated robbery and pleaded not guilty. After a jury found him guilty, the trial court found true the allegations in an enhancement paragraph and assessed punishment at 30 years confinement. In his sole issue on appeal, Hall contends that the judgment of the trial court should be modified to reflect that his punishment was assessed by the trial court, not the jury. We modify the judgment and, as modified, affirm. MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT Hall s sole claim on appeal is that the judgment should be modified to reflect that the trial judge (and not the jury) assessed punishment. The State agrees that the judgment should be so modified. An appellate court has the power to correct and reform a trial court judgment to make the record speak the truth when it has the necessary data and information to do so, or make any appropriate order as the law and nature of the case may require. Nolan v. State, 39 S.W.3d 697, 698 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.). Under Rule 43.2(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, rather than correcting and reforming a judgment, the Court of Appeals may . . . modify the trial court s judgment and affirm it as modified. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b). We sustain Hall s sole issue. 2 CONCLUSION We modify the trial court s judgment to show that appellant s punishment was assessed by the trial court and not by the jury. We affirm the judgment as modified. We overrule all pending motions as moot. Rebeca Huddle Justice Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.