James Westbrook v. State

Opinion

Affirmed as Modified and Opinion Filed January 8, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-00311-CR

No. 05-13-00313-CR

JAMES DARRELL WESTBROOK, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2 Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F12-24087-I, F12-59894-I

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Francis, Lang-Miers, and Lewis Opinion by Justice Francis

James Darrell Westbrook appeals his convictions for theft of property valued at $1,500 or more but less than $20,000 and possession of methamphetamine in an amount less than one gram. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief 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 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant.

Appellant filed a pro se response raising several issues. After reviewing counsel’s brief, 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, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals.

We note that appellant pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs contained in each indictment at the same time he pleaded guilty to the offenses. The orders deferring adjudication of guilt reflect both the pleas and findings of true. Additionally, after the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty of the two offenses, he again found the enhancement paragraphs true. The judgments adjudicating guilt, however, omit the pleas and findings. Thus, the judgments are not correct.

Accordingly, we modify the judgments adjudicating guilt to show appellant pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs and the trial court found the two enhancement paragraphs true. 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 judgments.

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47

130311F.U05

/Molly Francis/

MOLLY FRANCIS

JUSTICE

3

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JAMES DARRELL WESTBROOK, Appeal from the Criminal District Court Appellant No. 2 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.

F12-24087-I).

No. 05-13-00311-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis, Justices Lang-Miers and Lewis THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt is MODIFIED to show pleas of true to the first and second enhancement paragraphs and findings of true to the first and second enhancement paragraphs.

As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt.

We ORDER the trial court to enter a new judgment reflecting these modifications.

Judgment entered January 8, 2014

/Molly Francis/

MOLLY FRANCIS

JUSTICE

4

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JAMES DARRELL WESTBROOK, Appeal from the Criminal District Court Appellant No. 2 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.

F12-59894-I).

No. 05-13-00313-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis, Justices Lang-Miers and Lewis THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt is MODIFIED to show pleas of true to the first and second enhancement paragraphs and findings of true to the first and second enhancement paragraphs.

As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt.

We ORDER the trial court to enter a new judgment reflecting these modifications.

Judgment entered January 8, 2014

/Molly Francis/

MOLLY FRANCIS

JUSTICE