Jude Winsbush v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 16, 2025
• Docket: 01-24-00657-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued October 16, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00656-CR NO. 01-24-00657-CR ——————————— JUDE WINBUSH, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 482nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case Nos. 1809408 & 1809409

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Jude Winbush, with an agreed punishment recommendation from

the State, pleaded guilty to the felony offenses of assault of a family member1 and

unlawfully carrying a weapon.2 Appellant also pleaded true to the allegations in two

enhancement paragraphs that he had twice been previously convicted of felony

offenses. The trial court then deferred adjudication of his guilt and placed him of

community supervision for seven years for each offense. The State, alleging

numerous violations of the conditions of appellant’s community supervision, later

moved to adjudicate his guilt. After a hearing, the trial court found certain

allegations true, found appellant guilty, and assessed his punishment at confinement

for thirty-five years for each offense, to run concurrently. Appellant timely filed

notices of appeal.

Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw in

each appeal, along with briefs stating that the records present no reversible error and

the appeals are without merit and are frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967).

Counsel’s briefs meet the Anders requirements by presenting a professional

evaluation of the records and supplying the Court with references to the records and

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(a)(1), (b)(2)(B); see also TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 71.005. 2 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 46.02(a-7), (e).

2 legal authority. See id. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that she has thoroughly reviewed the record in

each appeal and is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

Counsel has informed the Court that she provided appellant with a copy of the

Anders briefs, her motions to withdraw, and the appellate records. Counsel also

informed appellant of his right to examine the appellate records and file responses

to counsel’s Anders briefs. Further, counsel provided appellant with a form motion

to access the appellate records and a motion for extension of time to file his Anders

response in each appeal.3 See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

Appellant filed responses to his counsel’s Anders briefs.

We have independently reviewed the entire record in each appeal, and we

conclude that no reversible error exists in the records, there are no arguable grounds

for review, and the appeals are frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing

3 This Court also notified appellant that counsel had filed Anders briefs and motions to withdraw and informed appellant that he had a right to examine the appellate records and file responses to his counsel’s Anders briefs. And this Court provided appellant with form motions to access the appellate records. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

3 reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of

proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763,

767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable

grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines

whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We note that appellant

may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for an appeal by filing a

petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See

Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.

Although not an arguable ground for reversal, counsel notes in her Anders

briefs that the trial court’s judgment in each case fails to show that appellant “pled

true to two enhancement paragraphs regarding two prior convictions[] and that the

[trial] [c]ourt found the[] allegations true.” See, e.g., Duffey v. State, Nos.

05-17-01446-CR, 05-17-01448-CR, 2018 WL 3723132, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas

Aug. 6, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Here, when

appellant pleaded guilty to the felony offenses of assault of a family member and

unlawfully carrying a weapon, he also pleaded true to the allegations in two

enhancement paragraphs in the indictments that he had twice been previously

convicted of felony offenses and the trial found those allegations true. At the hearing

on the State’s motions to adjudicate appellant’s guilt, the trial court reiterated that

4 appellant had “pled true to two enhancement paragraphs . . . at the time of [his]

plea[s]” and that it “ha[d] already found those to be true,” and it sentenced appellant

accordingly. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(d) (“Penalties for Repeat and

Habitual Felony Offenders on Trial for First, Second, or Third Degree Felony”); see

also Duffey, 2018 WL 3723132, at *1.

“[A]ppellate court[s] ha[ve] the power to correct and reform a trial court

judgment ‘to make the record speak the truth when [they] ha[ve] the necessary data

and information to do so[] or make any appropriate order as the law and nature of

the case may require.’” Nolan v. State, 39 S.W.3d 697, 698 (Tex. App.—Houston

[1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (quoting Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 1991, pet ref’d)). This is true no matter who, or if anyone, has called

the matter to the attention of the appellate court. See French v. State, 830 S.W.2d

607, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Dromgoole v. State, 470 S.W.3d 204, 226 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. ref’d).

Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgments adjudicating guilt to show

that appellant pleaded true to the allegations in two enhancement paragraphs and that

the trial court found the allegations in the enhancement paragraphs to be true. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Duffey, 2018 WL 3723132, at *1; see also Bigley v. State,

865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (courts of appeals have authority to

modify a judgment). Specifically, we modify the judgment in each case to add

5 sections stating: “1st Enhancement Paragraph: Pleaded True,” “Finding on 1st

Enhancement Paragraph: True,” “2nd Enhancement Paragraph: Pleaded True,” and

“Finding on 2nd Enhancement Paragraph: True.” See Duffey, 2018 WL 3723132, at

*1.

Conclusion

We affirm the judgments of the trial court as modified and grant appellant’s

appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw in each appeal.4 Attorney Anne More

Burnham must immediately send appellant the required notice and file a copy of the

notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other

pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Guiney, and Johnson.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

4 Appellant’s counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of the appeals and that appellant may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).