Court Opinion

ID: 9895627
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 07:09:47.971303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:41.362179
License: Public Domain

Modified and Affirmed and Opinion Filed November 6, 2023

                                                In The
                                 Court of Appeals
                          Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                       No. 05-22-01091-CR

                              DANIEL PAUL RAY, Appellant
                                         V.
                             THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                          On Appeal from the 77th District Court
                               Limestone County, Texas
                             Trial Court Cause No. 15487-A

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION
                    Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Nowell
                                Opinion by Justice Nowell

        Daniel Paul Ray was indicted for one count of burglary of a habitation and

two counts of theft of metal less than $20,000. The jury found appellant guilty and

assessed his punishment at 99 years confinement for burglary of a habitation and 20

years confinement for each count of theft of metal less than $20,000.1

    1
     This appeal originally was filed in the Tenth Court of Appeals. The appeal was transferred to this
Court pursuant to a docket-equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE
ANN. § 73.001. Because this is a transferred case, we apply precedent of the Tenth Court of Appeals to the
extent it differs from our own. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
       On appeal, appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which he

concluded the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). He also filed an accompanying motion to withdraw

as appointed counsel.

       Appellant was provided a complete record and advised of his rights to file a

pro se response. Appellant filed a pro se response objecting to counsel’s Anders brief

and motion to withdraw, questioning rulings made by the trial court, and arguing his

sentence was unconstitutionally excessive.

       The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives

an Anders brief and a pro se response, the reviewing court has two choices. Bledsoe

v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). After conducting an

independent examination of the record, “[the appellate court] may determine that the

appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the

record and finds no reversible error[.] Or, it may determine that arguable grounds

for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be

appointed to brief the issues.” Id. at 826-27 (internal citations omitted). The appellate

court does not address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or in a pro

se response when it has determined there are no arguable grounds for review. Id. at

827.

       We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, including

the issues raised in appellant’s pro se response. We conclude that no reversible error

                                          –2–
exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds for review, and, therefore, the

appeal is wholly frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (reviewing court, and not

counsel, determines—after full examination of proceedings—whether appeal is

wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)

(reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for appeal exist).

      Although not an arguable issue, the trial court’s judgments incorrectly state

appellant plead “true” to the enhancement/habitual allegations. The record shows

appellant plead “not true” to the enhancement/habitual allegations. Appellate courts

may modify a trial court’s judgment and affirm it as modified. See TEX. R. APP. P.

43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). A court of

appeals has the authority to correct and reform a judgment to make the record speak

the truth when it has the information to do so. Castro v. State, No. 10-22-00279-CR,

2023 WL 6885049, at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco Oct. 19, 2023, no pet. h.) (mem. op.,

not designated for publication) (citing TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley, 865 S.W.2d

at 27-28. Accordingly, we modify the sections of the judgments titled “Plea to 1st

Enhancement Paragraph” and “Plea to 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph” to read

“Not True.”

                                        –3–
      We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgments

as modified.

                                         /Erin A. Nowell//
                                         ERIN A. NOWELL
                                         JUSTICE

221091f.u05
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

                                      –4–
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

DANIEL PAUL RAY, Appellant                   On Appeal from the 77th District
                                             Court, Limestone County, Texas
No. 05-22-01091-CR          V.               Trial Court Cause No. 15487-A.
                                             Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 Justices Molberg and Pedersen, III
                                             participating.

   Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgments of the trial court are
MODIFIED as follows:

As to Count One:

      Under the heading “Plea to 1st Enhancement Paragraph,” we DELETE the
word “True” and ADD the words “Not True.”
      Under the heading “Plea to 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph,” we
DELETE the word “True” and ADD the words “Not True.”

As REFORMED, the judgment for Count One is AFFIRMED.

As to Count Two:

      Under the heading “Plea to 1st Enhancement Paragraph,” we DELETE the
word “True” and ADD the words “Not True.”
      Under the heading “Plea to 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph,” we
DELETE the word “True” and ADD the words “Not True.”

As REFORMED, the judgment for Count Two is AFFIRMED.

                                       –5–
As to Count Three:

      Under the heading “Plea to 1st Enhancement Paragraph,” we DELETE the
word “True” and ADD the words “Not True.”
      Under the heading “Plea to 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph,” we
DELETE the word “True” and ADD the words “Not True.”

As REFORMED, the judgment for Count Three is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 6th day of November, 2023.

                                      –6–