Robert Lee McDaniel v. State ( 2016 )

Affirmed as Modified; Opinion Filed June 6, 2016.
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-15-01072-CR
No. 05-15-01073-CR
No. 05-15-01074-CR
No. 05-15-01075-CR
ROBERT LEE MCDANIEL, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F15-30239-U, F15-32920-U, F15-32922-U, F15-45100-U
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Bridges and Lang
Opinion by Justice Lang
Robert Lee McDaniel waived a jury, pleaded guilty to four robbery offenses, and pleaded
true to two enhancement paragraphs. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.02(a) (West 2011). After
finding appellant guilty and the enhancement paragraphs true, the trial court assessed punishment
at twenty-five years’ imprisonment in each case. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed briefs in
which she concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the
requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional
evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See
High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–12 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered
copies of the briefs to appellant. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014) (identifying duties of appellate courts and counsel in Anders cases).
Appellant filed a pro se response raising several issues After reviewing counsel’s briefs,
appellant’s pro se response, and the record, we agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit.
See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate
court’s duty in Anders cases). We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the
appeals.
Although not an arguable issue, we note several clerical errors in the judgments. First,
the judgments do not correctly reflect that appellant pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs
in each case and the trial court found the enhancement paragraphs true. Second, the judgments
incorrectly reflect there was a plea bargain agreement. The record shows appellant entered open
pleas of guilty to the charges in the indictments. Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s
judgment in each case to show the “plea to 1st enhancement paragraph” is “true,” “findings on
1st enhancement paragraph” is “true,” “plea to 2nd enhancement paragraph” is “true,” “findings
on 2nd enhancement paragraph” is true, and the “terms of plea bargain” is “open.” See TEX. R.
APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State,
813 S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d).
As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in each case.
/Douglas S. Lang/
DOUGLAS S. LANG
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
151072F.U05
–2–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
ROBERT LEE MCDANIEL, Appellant On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-15-01072-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F15-30239-U.
Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. Chief
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justice Wright and Justice Bridges
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED
as follows:
The section entitled “Terms of Plea Bargain” is modified to show “Open.”
The section entitled “Plea to 1st Enhancement Paragraph” is modified to show “True.”
The section entitled “Findings on 1st Enhancement Paragraph” is modified to show
“True.”
The section entitled “Plea to 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph” is modified to show
“True.”
The section entitled “Findings on 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph” is modified to
show “True.”
As MODIFIED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 6th day of June, 2016.
–3–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
ROBERT LEE MCDANIEL, Appellant On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-15-01073-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F15-32920-U.
Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. Chief
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justice Wright and Justice Bridges
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED
as follows:
The section entitled “Terms of Plea Bargain” is modified to show “Open.”
The section entitled “Plea to 1st Enhancement Paragraph” is modified to show “True.”
The section entitled “Findings on 1st Enhancement Paragraph” is modified to show
“True.”
The section entitled “Plea to 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph” is modified to show
“True.”
The section entitled “Findings on 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph” is modified to
show “True.”
As MODIFIED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 6th day of June, 2016.
–4–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
ROBERT LEE MCDANIEL, Appellant On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-15-01074-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F15-32922-U.
Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. Chief
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justice Wright and Justice Bridges
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED
as follows:
The section entitled “Terms of Plea Bargain” is modified to show “Open.”
The section entitled “Plea to 1st Enhancement Paragraph” is modified to show “True.”
The section entitled “Findings on 1st Enhancement Paragraph” is modified to show
“True.”
The section entitled “Plea to 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph” is modified to show
“True.”
The section entitled “Findings on 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph” is modified to
show “True.”
As MODIFIED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 6th day of June, 2016.
–5–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
ROBERT LEE MCDANIEL, Appellant On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-15-01075-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F15-45100-U.
Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. Chief
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justice Wright and Justice Bridges
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED
as follows:
The section entitled “Terms of Plea Bargain” is modified to show “Open.”
The section entitled “Plea to 1st Enhancement Paragraph” is modified to show “True.”
The section entitled “Findings on 1st Enhancement Paragraph” is modified to show
“True.”
The section entitled “Plea to 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph” is modified to show
“True.”
The section entitled “Findings on 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph” is modified to
show “True.”
As MODIFIED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 6th day of June, 2016.
–6–