Affirmed as Modified; Opinion Filed February 23, 2015.

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00309-CR

PATRICK DARNELL LAWRENCE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F08-73515-S

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Myers and Evans

Opinion by Justice Myers

Patrick Darnell Lawrence appeals his conviction, following the adjudication of his guilt,

for burglary of a habitation. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(a) (West 2011). The trial court 

assessed punishment, enhanced by two prior felony convictions, at twenty-five years’ 

imprisonment. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which she 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, 811–12

(Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We 
-2-

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) (identifying duties of appellate 

courts and counsel in Anders cases).

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 that the judgment adjudicating guilt does not 

reflect either appellant’s pleas or the trial court’s findings on the two enhancement paragraphs 

alleged in the indictment. The pleas and findings are reflected on the order deferring 

adjudication of guilt. Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt to 

reflect that appellant pleaded true to both the first and second enhancement paragraphs and the 

trial court found true both the first and second enhancement paragraphs. 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. We order the trial court to enter an 

amended judgment adjudicating guilt reflecting these modifications.

/ Lana Myers/

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

140309F.U05
-3-

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT

PATRICK DARNELL LAWRENCE, 

Appellant 

No. 05-14-00309-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District 

Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 

F08-73515-S).

Opinion delivered by Justice Myers, Chief 

Justice Wright and Justice Evans 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt is 

MODIFIED as follows:

Add section entitled “Plea to 1st Enhancement Paragraph: True.”

Add section entitled “Plea to 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph: True.”

Add section entitled “Findings on 1st Enhancement Paragraph: True.”

Add section entitled “Findings on 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph: True.”

As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt. We ORDER

the trial court to issue an amended judgment adjudicating guilt that reflects these modifications.

Judgment entered February 23, 2015.