his indictment. In his motion, Leverett complained the indictment needed to more specifically describe the gold and jewelry that he had allegedly stolen. See Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 21.09 (West 2009) (explaining the amount of detail required in describing personal property in an indictment). Subsequently, the trial court conducted a hearing on Leverett’s motion. During the hearing, the State argued that the indictment was not deficient, but also argued that if it was, the State should be given additional time to satisfy any due process requirements by providing Lever-ett notice by means other than the language in the indictment, allowing the State to provide Leverett with more detail regarding the property at issue. See Kella/r v. State, 108 S.W.3d 811, 814 (Tex.Crim. App.2003) (<HOLDING>). During the hearing, the trial court
holding that substantial compliance with notice is sufficient holding that due process requires not only notice but sufficient information to allow petitioner to prepare and present objection to the agencys preliminary action or decision holding that verbal notice was sufficient holding defendant not prejudiced by allowing the state to amend its indictment because he had more than adequate time to prepare his defense holding that the states itemized list containing dates check numbers and amounts of multiple transactions provided defendant with sufficient notice to prepare a defense