Opinion
NO. 03-15-00633-CR
05-24-2016
Danelle Anders Roberson, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF TRAVIS COUNTY, NO. D-1-DC-14-301863, THE HONORABLE MIKE DENTON, JUDGE PRESIDINGMEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Danelle Anders Roberson was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision after he pled guilty to family violence assault-strangulation. See Tex. Penal Code § 22.01(b)(2)(B); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.12, § 5(a). Subsequently, the trial court granted the State's motion to adjudicate after finding that appellant had violated the conditions of supervision. The court adjudicated appellant guilty, revoked his community supervision, and assessed his punishment at five years' confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.12, § 5(b); Tex. Penal Code § 12.34.
The State's amended motion to adjudicate contained 11 allegations concerning appellant's violations of supervision conditions, which included the commission of two new assault offenses, the violation of a no-contact order, the failure to report to his community supervision officer, the failure to submit to a home visit, the failure to notify his supervision officer of a change in address, the failure to complete a family violence assessment, and the failure to pay various fees associated with the conditions of his supervision. At the adjudication hearing, appellant pled not true to the allegations in the motion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that appellant had violated the conditions of his supervision by committing the alleged assaults and violating the no-contact order. The trial court did not make findings as to the remaining allegations. --------
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, 81-82 (1988).
Appellant's counsel has certified to this Court that he sent copies of the motion and brief to appellant, advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response, and provided a motion to assist appellant in obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Appellant requested access to the appellate record, and pursuant to this Court's order the clerk of the trial court provided written verification to this Court that the record was provided to appellant. See Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 321. Appellant has filed a pro se response in which he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his adjudication of guilt and complains that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his adjudication hearing.
We have conducted an independent review of the record—including the record of the adjudication proceedings, appellate counsel's brief, and appellant's pro se response—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. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.
On review of the record, however, we observe that the judgment adjudicating guilt in this case contains a clerical error. Specifically, the judgment erroneously states that appellant's "Plea to Motion to Adjudicate" was "True" when the record of the adjudication hearing reflects that appellant entered pleas of "Not True" to the allegations contained in the motion to adjudicate. This Court has the 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 modify the judgment adjudicating guilt to reflect that appellant's "Plea to Motion to Adjudicate" was "Not True."
As so modified, the trial court's judgment adjudicating guilt is affirmed.
/s/_________
Melissa Goodwin, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Field Modified and, as Modified, Affirmed Filed: May 24, 2016 Do Not Publish