Opinion
Nos. 05-03-01305-CR, 05-03-01306-CR, 05-03-01307-CR
Opinion Filed September 27, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F99-02450-KU, F99-02451-KU, F00-22936-TU. Affirmed In Part, Affirmed As Modified In Part.
Before Justices O'NEILL, LANG, and LANG-MIERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Karon Tywayne Hill entered negotiated guilty pleas to two offenses of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and one offense of forgery. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt, placed appellant on community supervision for ten years in the burglary cases and five years in the forgery case, and ordered restitution in one burglary case and the forgery case. Within the period of community supervision, the State filed a motion to proceed with adjudication of guilt, alleging appellant had committed multiple violations of the terms and conditions of community supervision. During the adjudication hearing, appellant entered a plea of true to the State's allegations and offered explanations for the violations. The trial court revoked community supervision, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at twenty years confinement and a $2000 fine for each burglary offense and two years confinement in a state jail facility for forgery. Appellant now appeals his convictions. Appellant's attorney filed a brief in which she 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. Appellant, however, did not file a pro se response. Although counsel concluded the appeal was frivolous, her brief raises two "points of error" for the Court to address. First, counsel points out the trial court's written judgments in the burglary cases do not reflect the $2000 fines the trial court orally pronounced. We have the authority to modify incorrect judgments when the necessary information is available 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 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd). Accordingly, in cause nos. 05-03-01305-CR and 05-03-01306-CR, we modify the trial court's July 18, 2003 judgments adjudicating guilt to reflect the trial court assessed fines of $2000. Secondly, counsel points out that, before accepting appellant's guilty pleas, the trial court delivered oral and written admonishments to appellant that incorrectly described the applicable punishment range for the burglary offenses. Counsel concludes no arguable ground for appeal arises from the improper admonishments because the admonishments substantially comply with article 26.13 of the code of criminal procedure. We need not decide whether counsel's interpretation is correct. Appellant did not appeal the deferred adjudication orders. As counsel discusses in another portion of her brief, appellant cannot now complain of issues arising from the original plea proceeding. Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999); Clark v. State, 997 S.W.2d 365, 368 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1999, no pet.). Because appellant did not appeal the deferred adjudication orders, we do not have jurisdiction to review the adequacy of the admonishments. See Clark, 997 S.W.2d at 368. Thus, we agree with counsel, on other grounds, that the admonishment error does not raise an arguable issue for appeal. 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. We affirm the trial court's judgment in cause no. 05-01307-CR. As modified, we affirm the trial court's judgments in cause nos. 05-01305-CR and 05-03-01306-CR.
Appellant filed one notice of appeal covering all three cases. Copies of the notice of appeal appear in the clerk's records for cause nos. 05-03-01305-CR and 05-03-01306-CR, but not in the clerk's record for cause no. 05-03-01307-CR.