Robert Lee McDaniel v. The State of Texas Appeal from 291st Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion )

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Affirmed as Modified; Opinion Filed June 6, 2016. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-15-01072-CR No. 05-15-01073-CR No. 05-15-01074-CR No. 05-15-01075-CR ROBERT LEE MCDANIEL, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F15-30239-U, F15-32920-U, F15-32922-U, F15-45100-U MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Bridges and Lang Opinion by Justice Lang Robert Lee McDaniel waived a jury, pleaded guilty to four robbery offenses, and pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.02(a) (West 2011). After finding appellant guilty and the enhancement paragraphs true, the trial court assessed punishment at twenty-five years’ imprisonment in each case. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed briefs 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 copies of the briefs 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 briefs, 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 appeals. Although not an arguable issue, we note several clerical errors in the judgments. First, the judgments do not correctly reflect that appellant pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs in each case and the trial court found the enhancement paragraphs true. Second, the judgments incorrectly reflect there was a plea bargain agreement. The record shows appellant entered open pleas of guilty to the charges in the indictments. Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgment in each case to show the “plea to 1st enhancement paragraph” is “true,” “findings on 1st enhancement paragraph” is “true,” “plea to 2nd enhancement paragraph” is “true,” “findings on 2nd enhancement paragraph” is true, and the “terms of plea bargain” is “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 judgment in each case. /Douglas S. Lang/ DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 151072F.U05 –2– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT ROBERT LEE MCDANIEL, Appellant No. 05-15-01072-CR On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F15-30239-U. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. Chief Justice Wright and Justice Bridges 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.” 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, the judgment is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered this 6th day of June, 2016. –3– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT ROBERT LEE MCDANIEL, Appellant No. 05-15-01073-CR On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F15-32920-U. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. Chief Justice Wright and Justice Bridges 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.” 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, the judgment is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered this 6th day of June, 2016. –4– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT ROBERT LEE MCDANIEL, Appellant No. 05-15-01074-CR On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F15-32922-U. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. Chief Justice Wright and Justice Bridges 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.” 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, the judgment is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered this 6th day of June, 2016. –5– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT ROBERT LEE MCDANIEL, Appellant No. 05-15-01075-CR On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F15-45100-U. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. Chief Justice Wright and Justice Bridges 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.” 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, the judgment is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered this 6th day of June, 2016. –6–

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.