## Facts

- Undercover Dallas police officers Lucio Cano and Tyrone Wall were working in an area known for narcotics trafficking.
- The officers saw Troy Neal Hooper flagging down passing cars in the area.
- Cano and Wall approached Hooper, spoke briefly, and told him they were looking to buy cocaine.
- Hooper agreed to help, called a dealer he knew, and arranged a cocaine purchase for the officers.
- Hooper carried out the transaction and delivered the cocaine to Cano and Wall.
- Cano and Wall paid Hooper, including money beyond the purchase price for facilitating the deal.
- Texas charged Hooper with felony delivery of cocaine (charged as delivery of less than one gram).
- At trial, Hooper requested a jury instruction on the defense of entrapment, arguing the officers induced him to commit the offense; the trial court denied the request.
- The jury convicted Hooper and assessed punishment at 15 years’ imprisonment. The case included a punishment enhancement paragraph alleging a prior conviction.
- The written judgment stated Hooper pleaded “true” to the enhancement paragraph, but the reporter’s record reflected he pleaded “not true.”

## Issues

1. Did the trial court err by refusing Hooper’s requested jury instruction on the defense of entrapment?
2. Should the appellate court modify the judgment because it incorrectly recited Hooper’s plea (“true”) to the enhancement paragraph when the record showed a plea of “not true”?

## Decision

- The court held Hooper was not entitled to an entrapment instruction because the evidence showed the officers provided an opportunity to commit the offense, not inducement through persuasion or other means likely to cause an ordinarily law-abiding person to commit it.
- The court held the judgment incorrectly recited Hooper’s enhancement plea as “true” and modified the judgment to reflect that Hooper pleaded “not true.”
- As modified, the court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is entitled to a defensive jury instruction only if there is some evidence raising each element of the defense, from any source, viewed in the light most favorable to submission.
- Texas entrapment (Tex. Penal Code § 8.06(a)) requires evidence that: (1) a law enforcement agent induced the defendant to engage in the charged conduct, and (2) the inducement used persuasion or other means likely to cause persons to commit the offense.
- Mere solicitation, requesting drugs, or offering a chance to commit a crime—without more—does not raise entrapment; providing an opportunity is not enough.
- Refusal to submit a defensive instruction is not error when the evidence fails to raise the statutory elements of the defense.
- An appellate court may reform a judgment to make it speak the truth when the record shows the written judgment contains an incorrect recital (including an incorrect plea to an enhancement allegation).

## Conclusion

The Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed Hooper’s conviction for delivery of cocaine and his 15-year sentence, holding that the officers’ conduct amounted to offering an opportunity to facilitate a drug buy rather than inducement sufficient to raise entrapment; the court modified the written judgment to correctly reflect that Hooper pleaded “not true” to the enhancement paragraph and affirmed the judgment as modified.


Hooper v. State, 2015 WL 4572471, No. 05-13-01286-CR (2015)