Middleton, Terrill v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 282nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed as Modified; Opinion Filed March 5, 2013. In The nurI nf AppIit% FifI1i t1itrirt nf LLxa; it Ji1ku No. 05-11-01318-CR TERRILL MIDDLETON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court Dallas County. Texas Trial Court Cause No. FlO-72351-S MEMORANDM OPINION Beft)re Justices FitzGerald, Fillmore, and Evans Opinion by Justice Evans Abandoning his initial llea of not guilty, Terrill Middleton pleaded no contest to the charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. As fact finder in the case, the trial court convicted appellant and sentenced him to ten years confinement. Appellant complains in two issues that the trial court erred in considering extraneous offense evidence at punishment and the judgment incorrectly reflects his plea. We modify the judgment to reflect appellant s plea of no contest. As modified, we affirm the trial court s judgment. The background of the case and the evidence adduced at trial are well known to the parties, and therefore we limit recitation of the facts. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.4 because the law to be applied in the case is well settled. In his first issue, appellant complains the trial court erred when it considered extraneous offense evidence at punishment that had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Because appellant ne\er objected to the trial courts admission or consideration of evidence pertaining to the offenses, however, he has forfeited his right to complain about them on appeal. See TEx. R. App. P. S3.l(). ( )nce the evidence was admitted without objection, it could be considered for all purpoSeS. . Zumora v. State, 375 S.W.3d 382, 396 (Tex. App. e 5 -- Flouston 14th 1)1st. 1 2014, pet. struck). We resolve appellant s first issue against him. Appellant next complains the udgment in his ease incorrectly states that his plea was not guilty, rather than no contest. The State agrees that the judgment should he modified to accurately reflect appellant s plea. We modify the judgment to reflect that appellant entered a plea of no contest. See Trx. R APP. P. 43 .lsherri App. -- i. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 3D (Tex. Dallas I 991, pet. refd). As modified, we affirm the trial court s judgment. EVANS TICE Do ISot Publish TEx. R. App. P. 47 11 1318F.U05 QL1IIrI of Appczth FiftIi Jhtrirt of Lixu it Jt1ku JUDGMENT MIDDLETON, TERRILL, Appellant No.05-I 1-013 tX-CR On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. Fl0-72351-S. Opinion delivered by Justice Evans. Justices FitzGerald and Fillmore participating. V. lHE STATE ()F FEXAS, Appellee Based on the Courts opinion of this date. the judgment of the trial court is MO1)IFIEI) to reflect appellant entered a plea oF no contest. As MODIFIED the judgmcnt is AFFIRMFD Judgment entered this 5th (lay of March, 2013.
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.
