Opinion
No. 05-05-00379-CR
Opinion Filed August 17, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F03-55248-RT. Affirm as Modified.
Before Justices WRIGHT, MOSELEY, and LANG.
OPINION
Cory I. Paris appeals his conviction for theft of property valued at $20,000 or more but less than $100,000. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 31.03(a), (e)(5) (Vernon Supp. 2005). Appellant waived a jury trial and pleaded nolo contendere to the offense. The trial court found appellant guilty and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment. In a single issue, appellant contends his nolo contendere plea was invalid because the trial court did not adopt the findings of the magistrate. We affirm the trial court's judgment. Appellant argues there is no evidence the district court ever reviewed the magistrate's findings and no order adopting the actions of the magistrate. The State responds that the record supports the presumption the trial court reviewed the actions of the magistrate. We agree with the State. The judgment recites the trial court accepted appellant's plea and found appellant guilty. We must 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). Although the district court judge did not sign the magistrate's form adopting the actions of the magistrate, the record shows the district court judge did review 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. The magistrate deferred a finding of guilt and passed the case for further proceedings. At the sentencing hearing, the district court judge discussed the procedural history of the case. Before pronouncing sentence, the judge said he was accepting appellant's plea. We conclude appellant has not overcome the presumption of regularity of the trial court's proceedings. We resolve appellant's issue against him. The record shows appellant entered an open plea of nolo contendere to the charges in the indictment. The trial court's judgment incorrectly recites that appellant entered a guilty plea and the terms of a plea agreement. Accordingly, we modify the trial court's judgment to show appellant pleaded nolo contendere and there was no plea agreement. 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). As modified, we affirm the trial court's judgment.