Affirmed as Modified and Opinion Filed May 2, 2017 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00758-CR 

No. 05-16-00759-CR 

RICKY WAYNE HANDY, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. F15-71808-T, F15-76320-T 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Fillmore, Whitehill, and Boatright 

Opinion by Justice Whitehill 

Ricky Wayne Handy waived a jury, pleaded guilty to two robbery offenses, and pleaded 

true to one enhancement paragraph contained in each indictment. After finding appellant guilty 

and the enhancement paragraph true, the trial court assessed punishment at thirty years’ 

imprisonment in each case. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which she 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. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se 
 –2– 

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 the trial court’s judgments incorrectly reflect 

appellant pleaded true to a second enhancement paragraph and the trial court found a second 

enhancement paragraph true. The indictment in each case alleged two prior felony convictions. 

However, the State moved to strike the second enhancement paragraph in each case and the trial 

court granted the motions. Accordingly, on our own motion, we modify the section of each 

judgment entitled “plea to 2nd enhancement/habitual paragraph” and “findings on 2nd 

enhancement/habitual paragraph” to show “N/A.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 

865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Estrada v. State, 334 S.W.3d 57, 63–64 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.). 

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

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47 

160758F.U05 

 

/Bill Whitehill/ 

BILL WHITEHILL 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

RICKY WAYNE HANDY, Appellant 

No. 05-16-00758-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F15-71808-T. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill. 

Justices Fillmore and Boatright participating. 

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

to show: 

 The section entitled “Plea to 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph” is modified to show 

“N/A.” 

 The section entitled “Findings on 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph” is modified to 

show “N/A.” 

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

Judgment entered May 2, 2017. 

 
 –4– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

RICKY WAYNE HANDY, Appellant 

No. 05-16-00759-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F15-76320-T. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill. 

Justices Fillmore and Boatright participating. 

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

to show: 

 The section entitled “Plea to 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph” is modified to show 

“N/A.” 

 The section entitled “Findings on 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph” is modified to 

show “N/A.” 

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

Judgment entered May 2, 2017.