Cal Maurice Butler v. The State of Texas Appeal from 292nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion )

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

MODIFY and AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed October 20, 2014. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01434-CR No. 05-13-01435-CR CAL MAURICE BUTLER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F06-65524-V, F06-65525-V MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices O Neill, Lang-Miers, and Brown Opinion by Justice O Neill Cal Maurice Butler waived a jury, pleaded guilty to two offenses of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon involving family violence. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2) (West 2011). He also pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs in each case. The trial court assessed punishment at forty years imprisonment in each case. On appeal, appellant s attorney filed a brief in which he 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. 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 several issues. After reviewing counsel s brief, 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, 826 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court s duty in Anders cases). We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Although not arguable issues, we note there is an error in each of the trial court s judgments. Although appellant pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs in each case and the trial court found the enhancement paragraphs true, the judgments incorrectly show n/a in the section related to the pleas and findings on the enhancement paragraphs. Accordingly, we modify the trial court s judgments to show (1) the pleas to the first and second enhancement paragraphs are true and (2) the findings on the first and second enhancement paragraphs are true. 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. /Michael J. O'Neill/ MICHAEL J. O NEILL JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 131434F.U05 Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT CAL MAURICE BUTLER, Appellant No. 05-13-01434-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F06-65524-V). Opinion delivered by Justice O Neill, Justices Lang-Miers and Brown participating. Based on the Court s opinion of this date, the trial court s judgment is MODIFIED as follows: 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, we AFFIRM the trial court s judgment. Judgment entered October 20, 2014. Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT CAL MAURICE BUTLER, Appellant No. 05-13-01435-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F06-65525-V). Opinion delivered by Justice O Neill, Justices Lang-Miers and Brown participating. Based on the Court s opinion of this date, the trial court s judgment is MODIFIED as follows: 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, we AFFIRM the trial court s judgment. Judgment entered October 20, 2014.

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.