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 T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 29.02(a) (West 2011). After
finding appellant gui lty and the enhancement paragraphs true, the trial court assessed punishment

at twenty

- five years’ imprisonment in each case. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed brief s in

which s he concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brie f 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

–

cop ies of the brief s 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 se veral issues After reviewing counsel’s brief s , 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, 82 6

– 2 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate
court’s duty in An ders cases). We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the
appeal s

. Although not an arguable issue, we not e several clerical errors in the judgments. First,
the j udgment s do not correctly reflect that appellant pleaded true to two enhancement paragraph s

in each case and the trial court found the enhancement paragraph s 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 in dictments. Accordingly, w e modify the trial court’s
judgment in each case to show the “plea to 1st enhancement paragraph” is “true,” “findings on

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

on 2nd enhance ment paragraph” is true, and the “terms of plea bargain” is “open.” Se e 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
, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529

– 30 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d).

As modified, we af

firm the trial court’s judgment in each case.

/Douglas S. Lang/ DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. 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 Cour t’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 sectio n 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 modifi ed 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 “Tr ue.”
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 Par agraph” 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 opin ion 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, Ap pellee 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 “Tr ue.”
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 Par agraph” is modified to show “True.”

As MODIFIED , the judgment is AFFIRMED

.

Judgment entered this 6th day of June, 2016.