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

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01434-CR

No. 05-13-01435-CR

CAL MAURICE BUTLER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F06-65524-V, F06-65525-V

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices O’Neill, Lang-Miers, and Brown

Opinion by Justice O’Neill

Cal Maurice Butler waived a jury, pleaded guilty to two offenses of aggravated assault 

with a deadly weapon involving family violence. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2) 

(West 2011). He also pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs in each case. The trial court 

assessed punishment at forty years’ 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 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 frivolous and without merit. 

See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (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 there 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 paragraphs true, the judgments incorrectly show “n/a” in the 

section related to the pleas and findings on the enhancement paragraphs. Accordingly, we 

modify the trial court’s judgments to show (1) the pleas to the first and second enhancement 

paragraphs are true and (2) the findings on the first and second enhancement paragraphs are 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).

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

/Michael J. O'Neill/

MICHAEL J. O’NEILL

JUSTICE

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. 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 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.”

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.”

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

Judgment entered October 20, 2014.
Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of 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 “Findings 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.”

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

Judgment entered October 20, 2014.