MODIFY and AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed May 26, 2015.

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00877-CR

No. 05-14-00878-CR

No. 05-14-00879-CR

No. 05-14-00880-CR

REGINALD KEITH PINK, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F09-55346-T, F13-60732-T, F13-60733-T, F13-72123-T

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Francis, Lang-Miers, and Whitehill

Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers

Reginald Keith Pink appeals his convictions for robbery, two aggravated robbery with a 

deadly weapon offenses, and one aggravated assault on a public servant offense. See TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 22.02(a)(2), 29.02(a)(2), 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011). The trial court assessed 

punishment, enhanced by two prior felony convictions, at life imprisonment in each case. On 

appeal, 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 
-2-

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 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). Appellant did, however, file several pro se motions.

We have reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro se motions. 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 appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in 

the record that might arguably support the appeals.

Although not an arguable issue, we note the judgments in cause nos. 05-14-00877-CR 

and 05-14-00879-CR do not correctly reflect appellant’s pleas to, nor the trial court’s findings 

on, the enhancement paragraphs. In each case, appellant pleaded true to two enhancement 

paragraphs alleging prior felony convictions, and the trial court found the enhancement 

paragraphs true. The judgment adjudicating guilt in cause no. 05-14-00877-CR contains no 

reference to the enhancement paragraphs and the judgment in cause no. 05-14-00879-CR states 

“N/A” in the sections regarding the first enhancement paragraph. As a result, the judgments are 

incorrect. Accordingly, we modify the judgment adjudicating guilt in cause no. 05-14-00877-CR 

to show that appellant pleaded true to the first and second enhancement paragraphs and the trial 

court found the paragraphs are true. We modify the trial court’s judgment in cause no. 05-14-

00879-CR to show appellant pleaded true to the first enhancement paragraph and the trial court 

found the paragraph true. 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).
-3-

In cause nos. 05-14-00878-CR and 05-14-00880-CR, we affirm the trial court’s 

judgments. In cause nos. 05-14-00877-CR and 05-14-00879-CR, we affirm the trial court’s 

judgments as modified.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

140877F.U05

/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/

ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS

JUSTICE
-4-

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT

REGINALD KEITH PINK, Appellant 

No. 05-14-00877-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District 

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

F09-55346-T).

Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers, 

Justices Francis and Whitehill participating.

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

MODIFIED as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

Judgment entered May 26, 2015.
-5-

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT

REGINALD KEITH PINK, Appellant 

No. 05-14-00878-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District 

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

F13-60732-T).

Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers, 

Justices Francis and Whitehill participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered May 26, 2015.
-6-

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT

REGINALD KEITH PINK, Appellant 

No. 05-14-00879-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District 

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

F13-60733-T).

Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers, 

Justices Francis and Whitehill participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIED as 

follows:

The section entitled “Plea to 1st Enhancement Paragraph” is modified to show “True.”

The section entitled “Findings on 1st Enhancement Paragraph” is modified to show 

“True.”

As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.

Judgment entered May 26, 2015.
-7-

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT

REGINALD KEITH PINK, Appellant 

No. 05-14-00880-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District 

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

F13-72123-T).

Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers, 

Justices Francis and Whitehill participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered May 26, 2015.