Affirmed as Modified; Opinion Filed February 23, 2015.

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 1 4
- 00 309
- CR
PATRICK DARNELL LAWR ENCE , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial Distri ct Cour t Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F 0 8
- 73515
- S 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Myers and Evans Opinion b y Justice Myers Patrick Darnell Lawrence appeals his conviction, following the adjudication of his guilt , for b urglary of a habitation. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 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 s he concl udes 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 adva nce. 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. Stat e , 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,
82 6

– 2 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appell ate 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 eit her 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 adjudica ting 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 T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State , 865 S.W.2d 26, 27

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State , 8 13 S.W.2d 526, 529

– 30 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd). As modified, w e 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 T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 140309F.U05- 3

- 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

JUDGMENT

PATRICK DARNELL LAWR ENCE , Appellant
No. 05

- 1 4

- 00309

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal f rom 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 adju dicating 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 en tered February 23, 2015.