Daryl Wayne Sirls v. The State of Texas Appeal from 204th Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion )

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

AFFIRMED as Modified; Opinion Filed September 11, 2014. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01493-CR DARYL WAYNE SIRLS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F12-56044-Q MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Lang, and Evans Opinion by Justice Evans Daryl Wayne Sirls appeals from the adjudication of his guilt for failure to stop and render aid. The trial court assessed punishment, enhanced by two prior felony convictions, at thirty years imprisonment. On appeal, appellant s attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is 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, 2014 WL 2865901 (Tex. Crim. App. June 25, 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 appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Although not an arguable issue, we note an error in the trial court s judgment adjudicating guilt. The record shows appellant pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs alleging prior felony convictions contained in the indictment. During the adjudication hearing, the trial court found both enhancement paragraphs true before imposing a thirty-year prison sentence. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(d) (West Supp. 2014). The trial court s judgment, however, erroneously omits both appellant s pleas and the trial court s findings on the two enhancement paragraphs. We modify the judgment adjudicating guilt to show appellant pleaded true to the first and second enhancement paragraphs, and that the trial court found the first and second enhancement paragraphs 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 judgment. We order the trial court to enter a corrected judgment adjudicating guilt reflecting these modifications. / David Evans/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 131493F.U05 -2- Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT DARYL WAYNE SIRLS, Appellant No. 05-13-01493-CR Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F12-56044-Q). Opinion delivered by Justice Evans, Justices Bridges and Lang participating. V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court s opinion of this date, the trial court s judgment adjudicating guilt is MODIFIED as follows: Add sections showing Plea to 1st Enhancement Paragraph is True and Findings on 1st Enhancement Paragraph is True. Add sections showing Plea to 2nd Enhancement Paragraph is True and Findings on 2nd Enhancement Paragraph/Habitual is True. As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court s judgment adjudicating guilt. We ORDER the trial court to enter a corrected judgment adjudicating guilt reflecting the above modifications. Judgment entered September 11, 2014. -3-

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.