Middleton, Terrill v. State

Opinion

Affirmed as Modified; Opinion Filed March 5, 2013.

In The nurI nf AppIit% FifI1i t1itrirt nf LLxa; it Ji1ku

No. 05-11-01318-CR

TERRILL MIDDLETON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court Dallas County. Texas Trial Court Cause No. FlO-72351-S

MEMORANDM OPINION Beft)re Justices FitzGerald, Fillmore, and Evans Opinion by Justice Evans

Abandoning his initial llea of not guilty, Terrill Middleton pleaded no contest to the

charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. As fact finder in the case, the trial court

convicted appellant and sentenced him to ten years’ confinement. Appellant complains in two

issues that the trial court erred in considering extraneous offense evidence at punishment and the

judgment incorrectly reflects his plea. We modify the judgment to reflect appellant’s plea of no

contest. As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. The background of the case and the

evidence adduced at trial are well known to the parties, and therefore we limit recitation of the

facts. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.4

because the law to be applied in the case is well settled. In his first issue, appellant complains the trial court erred when it considered extraneous

offense evidence at punishment that had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Because

appellant ne\er objected to the trial courts admission or consideration of evidence pertaining to

the offenses, however, he has forfeited his right to complain about them on appeal. See TEx. R.

App. P. S3.l(). ( )nce the evidence was admitted without objection, it could be considered for all

purpoSeS. . e’ Zumora v. State, 375 S.W.3d 382, 396 (Tex. App. 5 ——-- Flouston 14th 1)1st. 1 2014,

pet. struck). We resolve appellant’s first issue against him.

Appellant next complains the udgment in his ease incorrectly states that his plea was not

guilty, rather than no contest. The State agrees that the judgment should he modified to

accurately reflect appellant’s plea. We modify the judgment to reflect that appellant entered a

plea of no contest. See Trx. R APP. P. 43 .lsherri i. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529—3D (Tex.

App. —-- Dallas I 991, pet. refd).

As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

EVANS ‘TICE

Do ISot Publish TEx. R. App. P. 47 11 1318F.U05 QL1IIrI of Appczth FiftIi Jhtrirt of Lixu it Jt1ku JUDGMENT

MIDDLETON, TERRILL, Appellant On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas No.05-I 1-013 tX-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. Fl0-72351-S. Opinion delivered by Justice Evans. lHE STATE ()F FEXAS, Appellee Justices FitzGerald and Fillmore participating.

Based on the Courts opinion of this date. the judgment of the trial court is MO1)IFIEI) to reflect appellant entered a plea oF no contest.

As MODIFIED the judgmcnt is AFFIRMFD

Judgment entered this 5th (lay of March, 2013.