Opinion
No. 14-04-00534-CR
Memorandum Opinion filed January 27, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 182nd District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 786,527. Affirmed as Reformed.
Panel consists of Justices YATES, EDELMAN, and GUZMAN.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal from revocation of appellant's community supervision. In 1998, a jury found appellant guilty of aggravated sexual assault, assessed punishment at ten years' imprisonment, and recommended that appellant be placed on community supervision. The trial court followed the jury's recommendation and sentenced appellant to ten years' imprisonment, probated for ten years. On April 26, 2004, the court revoked the community supervision. Appellant filed a written notice of appeal. First, the State asks this court to reform the trial court's judgment of April 26, 2004, because it shows an erroneous sentence of ten years' imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The State agrees that the trial court's docket reflects the sentence actually imposed, five years' imprisonment. Accordingly we reform the judgment to reflect that appellant was sentenced to five years' imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Second, appellant's appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is otherwise wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and no motion to review the record or pro se response has been filed. We agree the appeal, aside from reformation of the judgment as to punishment, is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the State. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed as reformed.