Jaaiber Denzel Randall v. The State of Texas Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 5 of Dallas County (memorandum opinion)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

MODIFY and AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed March 22, 2017. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-16-00540-CR No. 05-16-00541-CR JAAIBER DENZEL RANDALL, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F16-52855-L, F16-52856-L MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Francis, Lang-Miers, and Whitehill Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers Jaaiber Denzel Randall waived a jury and pleaded guilty to two injury to a child offenses. After finding appellant guilty, the trial court assessed punishment at six years’ imprisonment. 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 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 reflects there were plea bargain agreements. The record shows appellant entered an open plea of guilty to the charges in each indictment. Accordingly, on our own motion, we modify the section of the judgments entitled “terms of plea bargain” to state “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 judgments. /Elizabeth Lang-Miers/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 160540F.U05 –2– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT JAAIBER DENZEL RANDALL, Appellant No. 05-16-00540-CR On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F16-52855-L. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers. Justices Francis and Whitehill participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 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.” As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment. Judgment entered this 22nd day of March, 2017. –3– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT JAAIBER DENZEL RANDALL, Appellant No. 05-16-00541-CR On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F16-52856-L. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers. Justices Francis and Whitehill participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 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.” As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment. Judgment entered this 22nd day of March, 2017. –4–

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.