) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (recognizing that an incorrect date regarding when the judgment was entered is a clerical mistake, not an error, but modifying the date the judgment was entered because the parties agreed that the date should be modified); Steinmann v. State , No. 10-16-00137-CR, 2017 WL 2623065, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 5559 (Tex. App.—Waco June 14, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ("We have held many times, most recently in March of this year, that statutory penal provisions are not required by the Code of Criminal Procedure to be included in the judgment."); Sabedra v. State , No. 10-16-00033-CR, 2017 WL 1101277 at *3, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 2241 (Tex. App.—Waco Mar. 15, 2017, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ("The fact that the Health and Safety Code provision cited along with the name of the offense in this particular judgment only refers to the subsection regarding the punishment if the offense is committed within a drug-free zone does not make the judgment in need of correction."). The following year, we received another brief that requested modifications to the trial court's judgment without addressing the defendant's conviction or sentence.