Opinion
No. 11-19-00346-CR
07-31-2020
MARCUS IVAN HARPER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 70th District Court Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. A-18-1687-CR , A-18-1688-CR, A-18-1689-CR, & A-18-1690-CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The jury convicted Appellant, Marcus Ivan Harper, of two offenses of aggravated sexual assault of a child and two offenses of sexual assault of a child, found a pleaded punishment enhancement was true, and assessed punishment of confinement for life on each offense. We modify the trial court's judgments in Cause Numbers A-18-1687-CR and A-18-1688-CR to reflect the correct date of the offenses and, as modified, affirm the trial court's judgments in Cause Numbers A-18-1687-CR and A-18-1688-CR. We affirm the trial court's judgments in Cause Numbers A-18-1689-CR and A-18-1690-CR.
Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed in this court a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, and a copy of both the clerk's record and the reporter's record. Counsel advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel's brief. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel's Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist.
We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.
We note, however, that the judgments in Cause Numbers A-18-1687-CR and A-18-1688-CR each reflect the incorrect date of the offense. The judgment in Cause Number A-18-1687-CR lists the date of the offense as "6/30/2018" and the judgment in Cause Number A-18-1688-CR lists the date of the offense as "4/1/2018." However, the remainder of the record clearly shows that these two offenses were committed on or about December 21, 2017.
An appellate court has the power to modify the trial court judgment to make the judgment speak the truth when it has the necessary information before it 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). We, therefore, modify the "Date of Offense" portion of the judgment in Cause Number A-18-1687-CR and of the judgment in Cause Number A-18-1688-CR to read "12/21/2017."
We grant counsel's motion to withdraw, affirm the judgments of the trial court as modified in Cause Numbers A-18-1687-CR and A-18-1688-CR, and affirm the judgments of the trial court in Cause Numbers A-18-1689-CR and A-18-1690-CR.
PER CURIAM July 31, 2020 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J. Willson, J., not participating.
Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.