BENNIE WILLIAMS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Affirmed and Opinion Filed October 19, 1989
 
 
S
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-88-01363-CR
............................
BENNIE WILLIAMS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 
.................................................................
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F88-96082-VJ
.................................................................
OPINION PER CURIAM
Before Justices McClung, Thomas and Whittington
        Bennie Williams appeals his conviction for burglary of a building. Punishment, enhanced by a prior conviction, was assessed at fifty years' confinement.
        Appellant's attorney has filed a brief in which appellant's attorney has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no grounds which would call for reversal. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Curry v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). A copy of counsel's brief has been delivered to appellant and appellant has been advised that he would be given the opportunity to examine the appellate record and that he had a right to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. Counsel has raised one arguable point of error, claiming that the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the introduction of evidence establishing the allegations in the enhancement paragraph of the indictment. We overrule his point and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
        The record reflects that at the punishment phase of trial, the State introduced evidence which showed that appellant had been convicted on four previous occasions of felonies. State's Exhibit No. 11 showed that appellant had been convicted in Cause No. F87-77446-JV of the offense of burglary of a building; the State had alleged in the second paragraph of the indictment that appellant had previously been convicted in the aforementioned cause. Appellant objected to the introduction of State's Exhibit No. 11 on the basis that the records showed an order adopting the action of the Dallas County Magistrate. See Tex. Gov't. Code Ann. § 54.301 et seq. (Vernon 1988). However, the record did not contain written findings of fact and recommendations by the magistrate. As a result, he argued, the trial court did not have any basis for adopting the magistrate's recommendations.
        We are bound to presume the regularity of court proceedings. Kelley v. State, 676 S.W.2d 104, 108 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). We may find a judgment in a case heard by a magistrate void only when the record affirmatively shows that the district judge failed to review the magistrate's actions. Ex parte Pardun, 744 S.W.2d 644, 645 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1988, pet. ref'd). There is no requirement in the Magistrates Act that findings of the magistrate be in writing. Ex parte Allen, 699 S.W.2d 886, 889 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1985, pet. ref'd). Accordingly, we may not declare a judgment void solely because the magistrate did not prepare written findings and recommendations.
        In the present cause, appellant introduced no evidence other than the lack of written findings by the magistrate. Compare Omura v. State, 730 S.W.2d 766, 767 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1987, pet. ref'd) (assertion by trial court that it had neither reviewed file nor personally issued order sufficient to rebut presumption of regularity). There is no other evidence in the record which would support the conclusion that the trial court did not review the actions of the magistrate. As a result, we hold that appellant failed to affirmatively show that the judgment in Cause No. F87-77446-JV is void. Appellant's point of error is overruled.
        The judgment is affirmed.
 
                                                          PER CURIAM
 
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 90
 
881363.U05
 
 
File Date[10-18-89]
File Name[881363F]