Modified and Affirmed and Opinion Filed November 6, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-22-01091-CR

DANIEL PAUL RAY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 77th District Court

Limestone County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 15487-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Nowell

Opinion by Justice Nowell

Daniel Paul Ray was indicted for one count of burglary of a habitation and 

two counts of theft of metal less than $20,000. The jury found appellant guilty and 

assessed his punishment at 99 years confinement for burglary of a habitation and 20 

years confinement for each count of theft of metal less than $20,000.1

 

1 This appeal originally was filed in the Tenth Court of Appeals. The appeal was transferred to this 

Court pursuant to a docket-equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE 

ANN. § 73.001. Because this is a transferred case, we apply precedent of the Tenth Court of Appeals to the 

extent it differs from our own. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
–2–

On appeal, appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which he 

concluded the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). He also filed an accompanying motion to withdraw 

as appointed counsel.

Appellant was provided a complete record and advised of his rights to file a 

pro se response. Appellant filed a pro se response objecting to counsel’s Anders brief 

and motion to withdraw, questioning rulings made by the trial court, and arguing his 

sentence was unconstitutionally excessive.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives 

an Anders brief and a pro se response, the reviewing court has two choices. Bledsoe 

v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). After conducting an 

independent examination of the record, “[the appellate court] may determine that the 

appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the 

record and finds no reversible error[.] Or, it may determine that arguable grounds 

for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be 

appointed to brief the issues.” Id. at 826-27 (internal citations omitted). The appellate 

court does not address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or in a pro 

se response when it has determined there are no arguable grounds for review. Id. at 

827.

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, including 

the issues raised in appellant’s pro se response. We conclude that no reversible error 
–3–

exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds for review, and, therefore, the 

appeal is wholly frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (reviewing court, and not 

counsel, determines—after full examination of proceedings—whether appeal is 

wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) 

(reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for appeal exist). 

Although not an arguable issue, the trial court’s judgments incorrectly state 

appellant plead “true” to the enhancement/habitual allegations. The record shows 

appellant plead “not true” to the enhancement/habitual allegations. Appellate courts 

may modify a trial court’s judgment and affirm it as modified. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). A court of 

appeals has the authority to correct and reform a judgment to make the record speak 

the truth when it has the information to do so. Castro v. State, No. 10-22-00279-CR, 

2023 WL 6885049, at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco Oct. 19, 2023, no pet. h.) (mem. op., 

not designated for publication) (citing TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley, 865 S.W.2d 

at 27-28. Accordingly, we modify the sections of the judgments titled “Plea to 1

st

Enhancement Paragraph” and “Plea to 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph” to read 

“Not True.” 
–4–

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgments 

as modified.

/Erin A. Nowell//

ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE

221091f.u05

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
–5–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

DANIEL PAUL RAY, Appellant

No. 05-22-01091-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 77th District 

Court, Limestone County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 15487-A.

Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell. 

Justices Molberg and Pedersen, III 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgments of the trial court are

MODIFIED as follows:

As to Count One:

Under the heading “Plea to 1st Enhancement Paragraph,” we DELETE the 

word “True” and ADD the words “Not True.”

Under the heading “Plea to 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph,” we 

DELETE the word “True” and ADD the words “Not True.” 

As REFORMED, the judgment for Count One is AFFIRMED.

As to Count Two:

Under the heading “Plea to 1st Enhancement Paragraph,” we DELETE the 

word “True” and ADD the words “Not True.”

Under the heading “Plea to 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph,” we 

DELETE the word “True” and ADD the words “Not True.” 

As REFORMED, the judgment for Count Two is AFFIRMED.
–6–

As to Count Three:

Under the heading “Plea to 1st Enhancement Paragraph,” we DELETE the 

word “True” and ADD the words “Not True.”

Under the heading “Plea to 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph,” we 

DELETE the word “True” and ADD the words “Not True.” 

As REFORMED, the judgment for Count Three is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 6

th day of November, 2023.