Opinion
No. 05-01-01523-CR.
Opinion Issued April 14, 2003. DO NOT PUBLISH, Tex.R.App.P. 47.
Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F01-27103-VI. Affirmed.
Before Justices MORRIS, WHITTINGTON, and FRANCIS.
OPINION
In this appeal, Marshall Dewayne Wright complains the trial court in his case never adopted the actions of the magistrate who accepted his guilty plea and recommended the sentence he ultimately received. We disagree and affirm the trial court's judgment. On August 20, 2001, appellant appeared before a magistrate and entered a guilty plea to charges of felony driving while intoxicated. The magistrate recommended, in accordance with appellant's plea bargain with the State, that appellant receive a sentence of seven years' confinement and a $1,500 fine. The trial court's judgment in the case reflects the guilty plea and the sentence recommended by the magistrate. The judgment, signed by the trial judge, also contains the following language: The court has reviewed the findings, actions and recommendations of the magistrate in this cause, finds that the terms of the negotiated plea agreement in this cause have been followed and hereby adopts all findings, actions and recommendations of the magistrate in his cause. The defendant is hereby adjudged guilty of the offense as set out above and ordered punished in accordance with the recommendation of the magistrate. In his sole point of error, appellant complains the trial court's judgment is void because the district court never adopted the magistrate's actions. He points to a document in the clerk's record styled "Findings, Conclusion and Recommendations of Magistrate's Original Plea" that is missing a trial judge's signature in the section titled "Order Adopting Actions of Magistrate." He also contends there is nothing in the trial court's judgment to indicate that the district court reviewed or adopted the magistrate's findings and actions. Under the doctrine of presumption of regularity, we must indulge every presumption in favor of the regularity of the proceedings and documents in the lower court. See Light v. State, 15 S.W.3d 104, 107 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). Here, despite the unsigned additional document, the signed judgment contains specific language indicating the trial judge reviewed and adopted the magistrate's actions. Therefore, we may reverse the judgment only if appellant can show that the record affirmatively contradicts this language. See Christian v. State, 865 S.W.2d 198, 202 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1993, pet. ref'd). Appellant has not done so. We overrule appellant's sole point of error and affirm the trial court's judgment.