Opinion
NO. 03-15-00680-CR
04-22-2016
James Leon Knight, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 426TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 73535, HONORABLE FANCY H. JEZEK, JUDGE PRESIDINGMEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant James Leon Knight was charged with aggravated robbery. See Tex. Penal Code § 29.03. A jury found Knight guilty, and the trial court assessed Knight's punishment at 25 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division.
Appellant's court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 86-87 (1988).
Appellant's counsel has represented to the Court that she has provided copies of the motion and the brief to the appellant; advised the appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief; and provided the appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record along with the mailing address of this Court. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. We have not received a pro se brief from the appellant.
We have conducted an independent review of the record, including appellate counsel's brief, and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous.
Finally, we note that the judgment of conviction states that the jury assessed the appellant's punishment. However, the record indicates that the trial court assessed punishment. This Court has authority to modify incorrect judgments when the necessary information is available to do so. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Accordingly, we reform the judgment to reflect that the trial court assessed punishment.
Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed as modified.
/s/_________
Scott K. Field, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Field Modified, and as Modified, Affirmed Filed: April 22, 2016 Do Not Publish