Judgment Reformation for Enhancement Finding | Hill v. State (2025)

Hill v. State, 10-25-00005-CR, May 21, 2026.

On appeal from 54th District Court of McLennan County, Texas

Synopsis

A Texas appellate court may modify a criminal judgment under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(b) when the written judgment incorrectly recites an enhancement finding, so long as the appellate record shows what the jury actually found. In Hill v. State, the Tenth Court of Appeals reformed the judgment from “found not true” to “Found True” because the record established that the jury found the enhancement paragraph true.

Relevance to Family Law

Although Hill is a criminal appeal, its practical significance for Texas family-law litigators is real. Family cases frequently turn on the existence, characterization, and procedural treatment of family-violence findings, criminal enhancements, and prior convictions—especially in SAPCR proceedings, protective-order litigation, conservatorship disputes, geographic restrictions, supervised possession disputes, and even disproportionate property division arguments in divorce. The case underscores a broader appellate point that matters in family litigation: when the written order does not match the record, the appellate court has authority to modify the judgment or order to make the record speak the truth. For family lawyers, that principle translates into careful review of final decrees, protective orders, enforcement orders, and findings to ensure that written rulings accurately reflect oral pronouncements, jury findings, and the trial court’s actual decision.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Otho Prince Hill IV was convicted of continuous violence against the family under Penal Code section 25.11, with an enhancement paragraph submitted to the jury. The jury convicted him, and he received a 20-year sentence. On appeal, Hill challenged the facial constitutionality of section 25.11(b) and also argued jury-charge error, contending the charge confused the jury and improperly broadened the indictment by submitting culpable mental states disjunctively.

The State, for its part, identified an error in the written judgment. Although the case had been tried and sentenced as an enhanced offense, the written judgment recited that the enhancement paragraph was “found not true.” The appellate record showed otherwise, and the State asked the court of appeals to reform the judgment to reflect the jury’s actual finding.

Issues Decided

• Whether Hill preserved a facial constitutional challenge to Penal Code section 25.11(b) by raising it in the trial court.
• Whether the guilt-innocence charge was confusing or misleading because it tracked section 25.11(b) and stated that jurors need not agree unanimously on the specific underlying assaultive act or exact date.
• Whether the jury charge improperly modified or expanded the indictment by submitting the culpable mental states in the disjunctive (“intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly”) when the indictment pleaded them conjunctively.
• Whether the court of appeals could modify the written judgment under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(b) to reflect that the enhancement paragraph was found true rather than not true.

Rules Applied

The court relied on several settled appellate and charge-law principles:

• A facial constitutional challenge to a statute may not be raised for the first time on appeal. Karenev v. State, 281 S.W.3d 428, 434 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Holland v. State, 702 S.W.3d 836, 843 (Tex. App.—Waco 2024, pet. ref’d).
• Jury-charge complaints are analyzed under the two-step Almanza framework: first, determine whether error exists; if so, assess harm. Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 171 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Alcoser v. State, 663 S.W.3d 160, 165 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022); Kirsch v. State, 357 S.W.3d 645, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).
• The unanimity concerns discussed in Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005), do not invalidate a charge that properly follows section 25.11(b), which expressly provides that jurors need not agree on the specific conduct or exact date for continuous violence against the family.
• When statutory culpable mental states are stated disjunctively, the indictment may plead them conjunctively and the jury charge may properly submit them disjunctively. Rogers v. State, 774 S.W.2d 247, 251 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989); Nickerson v. State, 782 S.W.2d 887, 891 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990); Manning v. State, 864 S.W.2d 198, 202 (Tex. App.—Waco 1993, pet. ref’d).
• Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(b), an appellate court may modify a judgment and affirm it as modified when necessary to make the record speak the truth. French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).

Application

The court first disposed of the facial constitutional challenge on preservation grounds. Hill had not argued in the trial court that Penal Code section 25.11(b) was facially unconstitutional. Instead, his trial objection targeted the jury charge language as violating unanimity principles. Because a facial attack on the statute itself had not been preserved, the appellate court overruled that issue without reaching the merits.

The court then turned to the charge complaints. On the argument that the charge confused and misled the jury, the court rejected Hill’s reliance on Ngo. In the court’s view, Ngo addressed a situation in which the jury was never told it had to be unanimous as to one specific criminal act. That was not the posture here. Section 25.11(b) expressly allows a conviction for continuous family violence without unanimity on the precise assaultive act or exact date, and the charge tracked that statutory framework. The court therefore found no charge error.

On the disjunctive-submission argument, the court applied the well-established rule that when a statute lists alternative culpable mental states disjunctively, the State may plead them conjunctively in the indictment and the court may submit them disjunctively in the charge. Because the underlying assault statute uses disjunctive mental states, the charge did not broaden the indictment or lessen the State’s burden.

Finally, the court addressed the judgment discrepancy. Here, the State’s position was straightforward: the written judgment incorrectly stated that the enhancement paragraph was “found not true,” but the appellate record showed the jury found it true. Invoking Rule 43.2(b) and French, the court agreed that this was the kind of clerical or recording error an appellate court can correct. Rather than reverse or remand, the court simply modified the judgment to reflect the truth of the record and affirmed the judgment as modified.

Holding

The court held that Hill’s facial constitutional challenge to Penal Code section 25.11(b) was not preserved because he did not raise that complaint in the trial court. As a result, the court overruled that issue without addressing the statute’s merits.

The court also held that the guilt-innocence charge was not erroneous. The instruction tracking section 25.11(b) did not impermissibly confuse the jury about unanimity, and the submission of culpable mental states in the disjunctive was proper even though the indictment had pleaded them conjunctively.

Most importantly for appellate practitioners, the court held that it could modify the criminal judgment under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(b) to correct the enhancement finding. Because the record showed the jury found the enhancement paragraph true, the written judgment was reformed from “found not true” to “Found True.”

Practical Application

For family-law litigators, Hill is less about criminal sentencing doctrine than about record fidelity and appellate mechanics. In family cases, lawyers often focus on the substance of the ruling and overlook whether the written order faithfully tracks the court’s oral ruling, jury findings, or the unambiguous procedural record. That is a mistake. Errors in a written decree or order can materially affect enforcement, collateral proceedings, future modification litigation, and appellate posture.

The most immediate crossover appears in cases involving family violence. Criminal findings, enhancement findings, deferred adjudications, and convictions often become evidentiary building blocks in conservatorship and possession disputes. If the written criminal judgment misstates what occurred, a family lawyer relying on that document may frame the case incorrectly. Conversely, when your client is harmed by an inaccurate written order in a family case, Hill reinforces the importance of asking the appellate court to reform the judgment or order when the record conclusively establishes the correct ruling.

This also matters in property litigation. Divorce cases can involve reimbursement claims, waste claims, just-and-right division arguments, and fault-based narratives tied to family violence or criminal conduct. If a predicate order or judgment is inaccurately memorialized, it can distort mediation leverage, trial strategy, and appellate framing. Hill is a useful reminder that appellate counsel should always compare the signed order against the verdict, oral rendition, docketed rulings, and reporter’s record before choosing a remedy.

Strategically, Hill also highlights a preservation lesson. Hill lost his facial constitutional complaint because he did not raise it in the trial court. Family lawyers should read that as a broader warning: constitutional, due-process, notice, and jury-submission complaints are often forfeited if not made with precision in the trial court. If your appellate theory differs from your trial objection, you may have no appellate theory at all.

Checklists

Reviewing Written Orders Against the Record

• Compare the signed judgment or order to the jury verdict, if any.
• Compare the signed order to the trial court’s oral pronouncements on the record.
• Check whether every finding recited in the order matches the reporter’s record.
• Verify enhancement, family-violence, arrearage, reimbursement, and sanctions findings for accuracy.
• Confirm that dates, names, and statutory references are correct.
• Identify whether the error is clerical, memorial, or substantive before selecting a remedy.

Preserving Error for Appeal

• Raise facial constitutional challenges explicitly in the trial court.
• Distinguish between a complaint about a statute and a complaint about charge language or an order’s wording.
• Make objections with enough specificity to match the argument you may later raise on appeal.
• Obtain a ruling on each objection.
• If necessary, file a motion to modify, correct, or reform the judgment or order.
• Ensure the clerk’s record and reporter’s record preserve the complained-of discrepancy.

Using Hill in Family-Law Appeals

• When the written order misstates the court’s actual ruling, consider requesting appellate modification rather than reversal.
• Frame the issue as one of making the record “speak the truth.”
• Cite Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 43.2(b) by analogy when the appellate court has authority to modify the judgment or order.
• Support the request with precise citations to the reporter’s record, verdict form, and written findings.
• Explain why the discrepancy is outcome-significant for enforcement, modification, or collateral consequences.
• Avoid overreaching; request reformation only when the record conclusively establishes the correct entry.

Trial-Level Prevention Measures

• Submit a proposed form of judgment or order after trial.
• Review the court’s proposed order line by line before signature.
• Ask the court to correct obvious inconsistencies immediately.
• Do not assume the clerk’s entry or final written order is accurate simply because the ruling was clear in court.
• Calendar deadlines for post-judgment correction if an error appears after signing.
• Coordinate with appellate counsel early when the record and the written order diverge.

Citation

Hill v. State, No. 10-25-00005-CR, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Waco May 21, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~80e8cdc6-869c-459e-ae4e-22821c9b85f6~~