MODIFY and AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed October 20, 2014.

In The 

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

No. 05

- 1 3

- 0 1434

- CR No. 05

- 13

- 01435

- CR

CAL MAURICE BUTLER , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial Distri ct Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F 06

- 65524

- V, F06

- 65525

- V



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices O’Neill, Lang

- Miers, and Brown Opinion b y Justice O’Neill

Cal Maurice Butler waived a jury
, pleaded guilty to two offenses of aggrav ated assault
with a deadly weapon involving family violence

. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 22.02(a)(2)
(West 2011)

. He also pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs in each case. T he trial court
assessed punishment at forty years’ imprisonment in each ca se

. 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 th e 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. 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 filed a pro se response raising several issues

. After reviewing counsel’s brief,
appellant’s pro se response, and the record, we agree the appeals are frivo lous and without merit.

See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 82 6

– 2 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate
court’s duty in Anders cases). We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the
appeal.
Although not arguable issues, we note t here is an error in each of the trial court’s
judgments. Although appellant pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs in each case and the

trial court found the enhancement paragraph s true , the judgments incorrectly show “n/a” in the

section related to t he pleas and findings on the enhancement paragraphs. Accordingly, w e modify the trial court ’ s judgment s to show (1) the plea s to the first and second enhancement
paragraph s are true and (2) the finding s on the first and second enhancement paragraph s are t rue

.
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, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

/Michael J. O'Neill/ MICHAEL J. O’NEILL JUSTICE

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47

131434F.U05

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

JUDGMENT

CAL MAURICE BUTLER , Appellant

No. 05

- 13

- 01434

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F06

- 65524

- V). Opinion delivered by Justice O’Neill, Justices Lang

- Miers and Brown participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is M ODIFIED 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.”
The section entitled “Plea to 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragra ph” is modified to show “True.”
The section entitled “Findings on 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph” is modified to show “True.”
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.

Judgment entered October 20, 2014.

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

JUDGMENT

CAL MAURICE BUTLER , Appellant

No. 05

- 13

- 01435

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F06

- 65525

- V). Opinion delivered by Justice O’Neill
, Justices Lang

- Miers and Brown 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 “Find ings on 1st Enhancement Paragraph” is modified to show “True.”
The section entitled “Plea to 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph” is modified to show “True.”
The section entitled “Findings on 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph” is modified to show “True.”

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

Judgment entered October 20, 2014.