David Sylvester Chambers v. State, 06-15-00122-CR

Appellant David Chambers was convicted of theft of property $1,500-$20,000, a state-jail felony, with two prior felonies used for punishment enhancement.
The State sought to amend the enhancement paragraph after the jury was sworn in to cure a date error, which the defense initially did not object to.
Chambers challenged the suppression ruling, arguing lack of corroboration for the witnesses’ tip and insufficient reasonable suspicion to support the stop.
The trial court denied suppression and sentenced Chambers to 15 years, enhanced to a second-degree felony range by prior convictions.
The State conceded the judgment incorrectly reflected a second-degree felony degree, and asked for reform to reflect state-jail offense with enhanced punishment range.
Appellate briefing and opinions focus on (1) amendment of enhancement paragraph post-swearing, (2) suppression of evidence based on corroboration and reliability of tip, (3) correction of judgment to reflect proper offense degree.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Amendment of enhancement paragraph after jury sworn	Chambers argues Article 28.10(b) bars post-swearing amendments.	State contends enhancement paragraph may be amended after swearing; no prejudice.	Amendment proper; no prejudice; error not shown.
Suppression motion and reasonable suspicion	Lack of corroboration for witnesses’ tip invalidates stop.	Stop supported by corroborated observations and inherently reliable tip.	Stop reasonable; suppression denied.
Judgment misstates offense degree after enhancement	Judgment incorrectly shows second-degree felony instead of state-jail offense.	Enhancement increases punishment range but does not change underlying offense degree; judgment should be reformed.	Judgment must be reformed to reflect state-jail offense; punishment range properly enhanced.

Derichsweiler v. State, 348 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (corroboration of eyewitness information through cooperating officers and dispatch supports reasonable suspicion)
Ford v. State, 334 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (enhancement effects do not change underlying offense degree; sentencing range can be enhanced while degree remains the same)
Mount v. State, 217 S.W.3d 716 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (reasonable suspicion for investigative detention based on totality of circumstances)
Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (totality of circumstances governs admissibility and severity for sentencing in improvements scenario)
Romo v. State, 2014 WL 6609050 (Tex. App.—Waco 2014) (enhancement months used for punishment range; does not change offense degree; court may reform judgment accordingly)
Sample v. State, 405 S.W.3d 295 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013) (preservation and harmless-error principles for appellate review in offenses and enhancements)
Barzingus v. Wilheim, 306 F.3d 17 (10th Cir. 2010) (not applicable; example of arbitration standard comparison (irreversible here, not used))