Opinion
No. 04-15-00698-CR
04-05-2017
James GLESSNER, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas
Trial Court No. 13-1379-CR-C
Honorable William Old, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
James Glessner was convicted by a jury of continuous sexual abuse of a young child and two counts of indecency with a child by exposure. The trial court sentenced Glessner to thirty-five years' imprisonment for the continuous sexual abuse count and to ten years' imprisonment for each of the indecency counts, all to run concurrently. Glessner timely appealed the judgment.
Glessner's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which he concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel also asserts that the judgment nunc pro tunc incorrectly states that punishment was assessed by the jury and requests the judgment be reformed.
The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel sent copies of the brief and motion to withdraw to Glessner and informed him of his rights in compliance with the requirements of Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (2014). This court provided appellant a copy of the appellate record and again advised him of his right to file a pro se brief. Glessner did not file a pro se brief.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We have identified no reversible error and agree with counsel the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We also agree with counsel that the judgment nunc pro tunc erroneously states punishment was assessed by the jury. We therefore modify the judgment to reflect that punishment was assessed by the trial court. We grant the motion to withdraw filed by Glessner's counsel, and affirm the trial court's judgment as modified. See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Glessner wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days after either this opinion is rendered or the last timely motion for rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration is overruled by this court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice DO NOT PUBLISH