Opinion
Nos. 05-04-00363-CR, 05-04-00364-CR
Opinion Filed January 6, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F97-55679-M; F03-55816-M. Affirmed; Affirmed as Modified.
Before Justices MOSELEY, RICHTER, and LANG-MIERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Gary Ray Barron appeals his convictions for possession with intent to deliver cocaine and delivery of cocaine. In 1998, appellant entered an open plea of guilty to possession with intent to deliver cocaine in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams. The trial judge deferred adjudicating guilt, placed appellant on six years' community supervision, and assessed a $500 fine. In 2003, the State moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging appellant committed delivery of cocaine in an amount less than one gram and violated other conditions of his community supervision. Appellant pleaded true to the allegations in the motion to adjudicate and entered an open plea of guilty to the delivery of cocaine offense. The trial court found the allegations in the motion true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and sentenced him to fifty years' imprisonment and a $500 fine on the intent to deliver offense, and to two years' confinement in a state jail on the delivery of cocaine offense. Appellant's attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is 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 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant he has a right to file a pro se response. Appellant filed several documents with this Court including a written designation of material for inclusion in the reporter's record and a motion for leave to file a supplemental response to Anders brief, which we treat as a pro se response. We have reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and the pro se response. See generally Bledsoe v. State, PD-300-04 (Tex.Crim.App. Nov. 16, 2005). We agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals. Counsel points out in the Anders brief that the judgment adjudicating guilt in cause number 05-04-00363-CR reflects a $500 fine that was not orally pronounced by the trial court and asks us to modify the judgment to delete the fine. See Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497, 502 (Tex.Crim.App. 2004); McCoy v. State, 81 S.W.3d 917, 919 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2002, pet. ref'd). Accordingly, we modify the judgment in cause number 05-04-00363-CR to delete the fine. We affirm the trial court's judgment in cause number 05-04-00364-CR. We affirm the trial court's judgment, as modified, in cause number 05-04-00363-CR.