Opinion
No. 05-18-00100-CR No. 05-18-00101-CR No. 05-18-00102-CR
03-27-2019
MARQUEISE JEROME DAVIS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F14-40153-M , F14-40269-M, F14-75213-M
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Whitehill, Molberg, and Reichek
Opinion by Justice Whitehill
Appellant Marqueise Jerome Davis appeals his convictions, following the adjudication of his guilt in each case, for two burglary of a habitation offenses and one aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon offense. The trial court assessed punishment at fifteen years' imprisonment for each burglary conviction and twenty years' imprisonment for the aggravated robbery conviction. On appeal, appellant's attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is 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, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining whether brief meets requirements of Anders). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (noting appellant has right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel).
We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court's duty in Anders cases). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
Although not an arguable issue, we note the judgments adjudicating guilt incorrectly recite there were plea bargain terms in these cases. The record, however, shows appellant entered open pleas of true to the allegations in the motions to adjudicate. Accordingly, on our own motion, we modify the section of each judgment entitled "terms of plea bargain" to show "open." TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (courts of appeals have authority to modify a judgment); Estrada v. State, 334 S.W.3d 57, 63-64 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (same).
As modified, we affirm the trial court's judgments adjudicating guilt.
/Bill Whitehill/
BILL WHITEHILL
JUSTICE Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
180100F.U05
JUDGMENT
On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F14-40153-M.
Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill. Justices Molberg and Reichek participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment adjudicating guilt of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows:
The section entitled "Terms of Plea Bargain" is modified to show "Open."
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court's judgment adjudicating guilt. Judgment entered March 27, 2019.
JUDGMENT
On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F14-40269-M.
Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill. Justices Molberg and Reichek participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment adjudicating guilt of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows:
The section entitled "Terms of Plea Bargain" is modified to show "Open."
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court's judgment adjudicating guilt. Judgment entered March 27, 2019.
JUDGMENT
On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F14-75213-M.
Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill. Justices Molberg and Reichek participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment adjudicating guilt of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows:
The section entitled "Terms of Plea Bargain" is modified to show "Open."
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court's judgment adjudicating guilt. Judgment entered March 27, 2019.