MODIFY and AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed December 1, 2015.

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00591-CR

No. 05-15-00604-CR

KEVIN RAY WINGO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F13-62425-Q, F15-70088-Q

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Lang-Miers, and Schenck

Opinion by Justice Schenck

Kevin Ray Wingo was convicted, following the adjudication of his guilt, for aggravated 

assault with a deadly weapon involving family violence, and his conviction for delivery of 

marijuana in an amount of five pounds or less but more than one-fourth ounce. See TEX. PENAL 

CODE ANN. § 22.02(a) (West 2011); TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 71.0021, 71.005 (West 2014 & 

Supp. 2015); TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.120(a), (b)(3) (West 2010). The trial 

court assessed punishment on the aggravated assault case at ten years’ imprisonment. In the 

marijuana case, the trial court assessed punishment, enhanced by two prior felony convictions, at 

ten years’ imprisonment. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the 
-2-

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. 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).

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 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 there are several errors in the judgments. In 

cause no. 05-15-00591-CR, the judgment adjudicating guilt incorrectly omits the “involving 

family violence” designation from the offense for which appellant was convicted. The trial court 

expressly found the offense involved family violence. Moreover, the judgment adjudicating guilt 

incorrectly reflects there was a plea bargain agreement, when, in fact, appellant entered an open 

plea of true to the allegations in the motion to adjudicate. Accordingly, we modify the section of 

the judgment adjudicating guilt entitled “offense for which defendant convicted” to state 

“aggravated assault with deadly weapon involving family violence, and the section entitled

“terms of plea bargain” to state “open.” 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 no. 05-15-00604-CR, the judgment incorrectly identifies the statute for the 

offense as “481.112 Health and Safety Code.” Appellant was convicted of delivery of marijuana 

pursuant to section 481.120 of the Texas Health and Safety Code. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY 

CODE ANN. § 481.120(a). And, the judgment incorrectly reflects there was a plea bargain 

agreement although appellant entered an open guilty plea. Accordingly, we modify the section 

of the judgment entitled “statute for offense” to show “481.120 Health and Safety Code,” and the 

section entitled “terms of plea bargain” to state “open.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley, 865 

S.W.2d at 27–28; Asberry, 813 S.W.2d at 529–30.

As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

150591F.U05

/David J. Schenck/

DAVID J. SCHENCK

JUSTICE
-4-

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT

KEVIN RAY WINGO, Appellant 

No. 05-15-00591-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 204th Judicial District 

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

F13-62425-Q).

Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck, 

Justices Bridges and Lang-Miers 

participating.

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

MODIFIED as follows:

The section entitled “Offense for which Defendant Convicted” is modified to show 

“Aggravated Assault with Deadly Weapon Involving Family Violence.”

The section entitled “Terms of Plea Bargain” is modified to show “Open.”

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

Judgment entered December 1, 2015.
-5-

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT

KEVIN RAY WINGO, Appellant 

No. 05-15-00604-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 204th Judicial District 

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

F15-70088-Q).

Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck, 

Justices Bridges and Lang-Miers 

participating.

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

follows:

The section entitled “Statute for Offense” is modified to show “481.120 Health and 

Safety Code.”

The section entitled “Terms of Plea Bargain” is modified to show “Open.”

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

Judgment entered December 1, 2015.