Affirmed as Modified; Opinion Filed June 6, 2016.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-01072-CR

No. 05-15-01073-CR

No. 05-15-01074-CR

No. 05-15-01075-CR

ROBERT LEE MCDANIEL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F15-30239-U, F15-32920-U, F15-32922-U, F15-45100-U

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Bridges and Lang

Opinion by Justice Lang

Robert Lee McDaniel waived a jury, pleaded guilty to four robbery offenses, and pleaded 

true to two enhancement paragraphs. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.02(a) (West 2011). After 

finding appellant guilty and the enhancement paragraphs true, the trial court assessed punishment 

at twenty-five years’ imprisonment in each case. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed briefs 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 
–2–

copies of the briefs 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 briefs, 

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 

appeals.

Although not an arguable issue, we note several clerical errors in the judgments. First, 

the judgments do not correctly reflect that appellant pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs 

in each case and the trial court found the enhancement paragraphs true. Second, the judgments 

incorrectly reflect there was a plea bargain agreement. The record shows appellant entered open 

pleas of guilty to the charges in the indictments. Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s 

judgment in each case to show the “plea to 1st enhancement paragraph” is “true,” “findings on 

1st enhancement paragraph” is “true,” “plea to 2nd enhancement paragraph” is “true,” “findings 

on 2nd enhancement paragraph” is true, and the “terms of plea bargain” is “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).

As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in each case.

/Douglas S. Lang/

DOUGLAS S. LANG

JUSTICE

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

151072F.U05
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

ROBERT LEE MCDANIEL, Appellant

No. 05-15-01072-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F15-30239-U.

Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. Chief 

Justice Wright and Justice Bridges 

participating.

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

as follows:

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

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, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 6th day of June, 2016.
–4–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

ROBERT LEE MCDANIEL, Appellant

No. 05-15-01073-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F15-32920-U.

Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. Chief 

Justice Wright and Justice Bridges 

participating.

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

as follows:

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

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, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 6th day of June, 2016.
–5–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

ROBERT LEE MCDANIEL, Appellant

No. 05-15-01074-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F15-32922-U.

Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. Chief 

Justice Wright and Justice Bridges 

participating.

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

as follows:

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

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, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 6th day of June, 2016.
–6–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

ROBERT LEE MCDANIEL, Appellant

No. 05-15-01075-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F15-45100-U.

Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. Chief 

Justice Wright and Justice Bridges 

participating.

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

as follows:

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

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, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 6th day of June, 2016.