From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baker v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Jan 9, 2006
Nos. 05-05-00836-CR, 05-05-00839-CR, 05-05-00837-CR, 05-05-00840-CR, 05-05-00838-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 9, 2006)

Opinion

Nos. 05-05-00836-CR, 05-05-00839-CR, 05-05-00837-CR, 05-05-00840-CR, 05-05-00838-CR

Opinion filed January 9, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F04-19626-MP, F04-24701-P, F04-55623-Tvp, F04-58026-QP, F04-58027-RP.

Affirmed as Modified.

Before Justices MORRIS, BRIDGES, and FRANCIS.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Scott Henry Baker pleaded guilty to two charges of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, possession of fraudulent identification, forgery, and possession of methamphetamine in an amount less than one gram. In each of the firearms possession cases, the trial court assessed punishment at imprisonment for eight years and a $1500 fine. In each of the remaining cases, the trial judge assessed punishment at two years confinement in a state jail facility and a $1500 fine.

Appellant's attorney filed a brief in which he 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. We advised appellant he has a right to file a pro se response, but appellant did not file a pro se response.

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals.

Although not arguable issues, we note the trial court's judgments in cause nos. 05-05-00836-CR, 05-05-00837-CR, and 05-05-00839-CR do not accurately reflect the proceedings. Specifically, in the section of the judgments entitled "terms of plea bargain," the punishment assessed is printed, as if it was an agreed punishment. The record, however, reflects that appellant entered open guilty pleas to the offenses, not negotiated guilty pleas. We have the power to modify incorrect judgments when we have the necessary information to do so. 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). Accordingly, in cause nos. 05-05-00836-CR, 05-05-00837-CR, and 05-05-00839-CR, we modify the section of the judgments entitled "terms of plea bargain" to state "none."

We affirm the trial court's judgments in cause nos. 05-05-00838-CR and 05-05-00840-CR In cause nos. 05-05-00836-CR, 05-05-00837-CR, and 05-05-00839-CR, we affirm the trial court's judgments as modified.


Summaries of

Baker v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
Jan 9, 2006
Nos. 05-05-00836-CR, 05-05-00839-CR, 05-05-00837-CR, 05-05-00840-CR, 05-05-00838-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 9, 2006)
Case details for

Baker v. State

Case Details

Full title:SCOTT HENRY BAKER A/K/A/ PAUL INGUAR BLANKENSHIP, Appellant, v. THE STATE…

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas

Date published: Jan 9, 2006

Citations

Nos. 05-05-00836-CR, 05-05-00839-CR, 05-05-00837-CR, 05-05-00840-CR, 05-05-00838-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 9, 2006)