Opinion
NO. 14-16-01014-CR
04-26-2018
CHARLES ALLEN HAWKINS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 239th District Court Brazoria County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 61720-A
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver. Appellant's appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirement of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), advancing frivolous contentions which might arguably support the appeal. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974).
A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). At appellant's request, the record was provided to him. On July 11, 2017, appellant filed a pro se response to counsel's brief.
We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and appellant's response, and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. However, the judgment adjudicating guilt contains clerical errors. In an appeal in which counsel has filed an Anders brief and the judgment adjudicating guilt contains clerical errors, we are not required to abate the appeal for appointment of new counsel if the judgment can be modified. See Ferguson v. State, 435 S.W.3d 291, 295 (Tex. App.—Waco 2014, no pet.) (modifying judgment in Anders appeal to correct age of child complainant); Bray v. State, 179 S.W.3d 725, 730 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (modifying judgment in Anders appeal to delete improper condition of parole). We conclude that the judgment in this case can be modified to correct the clerical errors.
The record reflects that appellant pled "not true" to the alleged violations of the supervision order. The judgment incorrectly reflects that appellant pled "true." Additionally, the record reflects that the sentence was not the result of a plea bargain. The judgment incorrectly reflects that the "terms of plea bargain" were "[e]ighteen (18) years TDCJ-ID." Accordingly, we modify the trial court's judgment to delete the notation that appellant pled "true" to the alleged violations of the supervision order and to reflect that appellant pled "not true" to the motion to adjudicate. We also modify the trial court's order to delete the "terms of plea bargain" as "eighteen (18) years TDCJ-JD" and to reflect that there was no plea bargain in the case. See French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (stating appellate court has authority to modify a judgment to "speak the truth").
We find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed as modified.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Jamison.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).