Quantara Laneese Melton v. the State of Texas, 05-20-00010-CR

Quantara Melton was indicted for murder after she pushed the complainant into oncoming traffic, causing him to be struck and run over by a motor vehicle (indictment characterized the vehicle as a deadly weapon).
At trial a jury found Melton guilty, found an enhancement paragraph true, and assessed punishment at 52 years’ confinement and a $5,000 fine.
At the punishment charge conference Melton’s counsel objected to the court’s parole-related jury instructions and requested that parole language be removed; the court deleted two sections but left other parole language, and neither side objected to the modified instruction as submitted.
On appeal Melton argued the court failed to give the legislatively mandated article 37.07 §4(a) parole instruction and that the error egregiously harmed her.
The State conceded the instruction was incorrect but sought to modify the judgment to correct clerical errors (add de facto deadly-weapon finding, correct statutory citation, and correct plea entries).
The court held Melton was estopped by invited error from challenging the modified parole instruction and, separately, modified the judgment to add the deadly-weapon finding and correct other clerical errors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Melton)	Held
Whether the trial court improperly gave a modified parole instruction instead of the verbatim article 37.07 §4(a) language	The State conceded the instruction as given was incorrect but argued the error was invited/estoppel applies because Melton requested removal of parole language and accepted the modified charge	Melton argued the court failed to give the statutorily required parole instruction and she suffered egregious harm	Court agreed the charge was incorrect but held Melton is estopped by invited error; issue overruled
Whether the judgment should be modified to correct clerical errors (deadly-weapon finding; statute cited; plea notations)	The State asked the court to modify the judgment to reflect the jury’s de facto deadly-weapon finding and to correct statute and plea entries	Melton did not successfully oppose the requested clerical corrections on appeal	Court sustained the State’s cross-issue and modified the judgment to add “YES, A MOTOR VEHICLE” under deadly weapon, change statute to 19.02(b), and correct pleas to “NOT GUILTY” and “PLEADED NOT TRUE”

Luquis v. State, 72 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (article 37.07 §4(a) requires the trial court to use the verbatim statutory parole instruction)
Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (invited-error estoppel bars appellate attack on action a party induced)
Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (appellant estopped from seeking an instruction she specifically requested be omitted)
Ex parte Poe, 751 S.W.2d 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (trial court must enter affirmative deadly-weapon finding in written judgment when jury makes such a finding)
Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (appellate court may reform judgment to make the record speak the truth)
Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991) (appellate correction of clerical errors where record supports change)
Kirsch v. State, 357 S.W.3d 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (framework for analyzing jury-charge issues)
Price v. State, 457 S.W.3d 437 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (harm analysis for charge error)