Opinion
No. 01-06-01148-CR
Opinion issued July 6, 2007. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 232nd District Court Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 1070296.
Panel consists of Justices NUCHIA, HANKS, and BLAND.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Victor Diaz Cortez, pleaded guilty to the offense of indecency with a child, and, after a pre-sentence investigation hearing, the trial court assessed punishment at confinement for 10 years. We affirm the judgment of the trial court as reformed. Counsel represents that he has served a copy of the brief on appellant. Counsel also advised appellant of her right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). More than 30 days have passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se brief. Having reviewed the record and counsel's brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit and that there is no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27(Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We note that the trial court's judgment incorrectly states that there was a plea bargain agreement in this case. The reporter's record, the court's docket entry for the plea, and the written stipulation of evidence, reflect that the plea was made without an agreement with the State as to punishment and that a presentence investigation was ordered. This Court has the authority to reform the trial court's judgment to correct a clerical error. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); See Bigley v. State, 865 S.W. 2d 26, 27 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993). The authority of an appellate court to reform incorrect judgments is not dependent upon a request of any party, nor does it turn on the question of whether or not a party made objection. See Asberry v. State, 813 S.W. 2d 526, 529-30 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd); Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b). Therefore, we modify the trial court's judgment to read "Terms of plea bargain — no agreement, presentence investigation." We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court as reformed. We grant counsel's motion to withdraw. See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.). We deny any pending motions as moot.
Counsel has a duty to inform appellant of the result of his appeal and also to inform him that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997).