Opinion
No. 05-02-01204-CR
Opinion Filed June 26, 2003 Do Not Publish
On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F02-50439-WT. AFFIRM
Before Justices BRIDGES, O'NEILL, and FITZGERALD.
OPINION
Keith Gerard Jones appeals his conviction for theft of property valued at less than $1500 and having two prior theft convictions. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 31.03(a), (e)(4)(D) (Vernon 2003). Appellant waived a jury trial, entered an open guilty plea to the offense, and pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs. The trial court found the enhancement paragraphs true and sentenced appellant to eight years' confinement. In two points of error, appellant contends the trial court erred in entering an incomplete and voidable judgment and in sentencing him without reviewing and adopting the magistrate's findings. We affirm the trial court's judgment. In his first point of error, appellant argues the judgment is not signed by the district judge, is missing the second page, and has a number of defects. Appellant further argues the trial court never orally pronounced him guilty as charged or found the enhancement paragraphs to be true. Thus, appellant argues, the judgment is improper and voidable. The State responds appellant's point of error is moot because the record shows the trial court entered a proper judgment. We agree with the State. We received a supplemental clerk's record containing a complete judgment that includes three pages and is signed by the district judge. The absence of an express oral pronouncement of guilt does not render a written judgment void. See Parks v. State, 960 S.W.2d 234, 238 ((Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet. ref'd). The judgment in this case recites that the trial court accepted appellant's guilty plea, found appellant guilty, and found the enhancement paragraphs true. Because the record contains a complete and proper judgment, we dismiss appellant's first point of error as moot. In his second point of error, appellant argues the trial court never received or adopted the magistrate's findings. Appellant argues the trial judge never stated on the record that he found appellant guilty or the enhancement paragraphs true, which shows the judge did not review or adopt the magistrate's actions. The State responds the record affirmatively shows the trial court reviewed and adopted the actions of the magistrate. Again, we agree with the State. The record shows the district judge reviewed the magistrate's actions. At the plea hearing, the magistrate found the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant committed the offense as alleged in the indictment and that the enhancement paragraphs were true. The magistrate deferred any findings of guilt and passed the case for a presentence investigation report. At sentencing, the district judge stated he was accepting appellant's pleas of guilty and true before he pronounced the sentence. As noted above, the judgment recites the trial court accepted appellant's guilty plea and found appellant guilty. We must presume that statement is correct in the absence of direct proof of its falsity, and there is no such proof in the record before us. See Johnson v. State, 72 S.W.3d 346, 349 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). Likewise, we presume the regularity of the trial court's proceedings and 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). It is appellant's burden to overcome this presumption of regularity. See Breazeale v. State, 683 S.W.2d 446, 451 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985) (op. on reh'g); Christian v. State, 865 S.W.2d 198, 202 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1993, pet. ref'd). We conclude appellant has not overcome the presumption of regularity of the trial court's proceedings. Accordingly, we overrule appellant's second point of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.