In Eastep v. State, 941 S.W.2d 130, 132 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997), the Court recognized three situations where an alteration to the face of the charging instrument is an abandonment, rather than an amendment: (1) abandonment of one or more of the alternative means of committing the alleged offense; (2) abandonment of an allegation if the effect is to reduce the prosecution to a lesser included offense; or (3) abandonment of surplusage. Id. at 133-35. Surplusage is unnecessary language not legally essential to constitute the offense alleged in the charging instrument. Id. at 134. Where the charging instrument may be altered to delete language which is not descriptive of what is legally essential to the validity of the charging instrument, the alteration is considered an abandonment, not an amendment. Id. at 134-35.