Opinion
Nos. 05-03-00089-CR, 05-03-00090-CR, 05-03-00091-CR, 05-03-00092-CR, 05-03-00093-CR, 05-03-00094-CR, 05-03-00095-CR.
Opinion Filed March 29, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F02-72596-J, F02-72617-J, F02-72618-J, F02-72619-J, F02-72807-J, F02-72934-IJ, F02-72935-LJ. Affirm.
Before Justices JAMES, WRIGHT, and BRIDGES.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Michael Ralph Lamberti appeals seven convictions for forgery. Punishment was assessed at ten years confinement and a $100 fine in each case. 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. 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. The record shows appellant appeared before a magistrate and entered nonnegotiated guilty pleas to the offenses and pleas of true to two enhancement paragraphs. The magistrate made findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding appellant's pleas. The magistrate reported his actions on seven form documents, one for each case. Each form also contains a blank order for the trial court judge to sign to adopt the magistrate's actions. The trial court judge did not fill out the adoption order in any of the seven forms. In his brief, counsel describes the trial court's inaction regarding the blank order form as an "arguable error." However, counsel chose not to pursue the argument, citing Kelley v. State, 676 S.W.2d 104 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984), for the proposition that the record need not include an affirmative adoption of the magistrate's actions. See id. at 109. A magistrate's actions are not binding until they are adopted by the referring court. Christian v. State, 865 S.W.2d 198, 202 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1993, pet. ref'd). However, because a presumption of regularity applies to the trial court's proceedings, appellant would bear the burden of affirmatively showing the trial court did not adopt the findings and recommendations. See id. The record need not contain an affirmative adoption of the magistrate's actions, and we will presume the trial court adopted the magistrate's actions if the record is silent. See Kelley, 676 S.W.2d at 108-09. See also Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 54.312(b) (Vernon 1998) (the magistrate's actions become the decree of the court unless modified, corrected, rejected, reversed, or recommitted). In this case, we agree with counsel that the issue of the blank adoption orders is not arguable on the merits. Nothing in the record shows the trial court did not review or adopt the magistrate's actions. To the contrary, the record shows the trial court accepted appellant's guilty pleas and pleas of true in accordance with the magistrate's actions. Thus, we conclude the existence of the blank adoption orders does not raise an 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 judgments.