Opinion
No. 09-08-00453-CR
Submitted on April 17, 2009.
Opinion Delivered May 6, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH.
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas, Trial Cause No. 90500.
Before McKEITHEN, C.J., GAULTNEY and HORTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Lloyd Dwain Hope pled guilty to aggravated assault. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Hope guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Hope on community supervision for seven years, and assessed a fine of $1000. On July 28, 2008, the State filed a motion to revoke Hope's unadjudicated community supervision. Hope pled "true" to four violations of the conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Hope violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Hope guilty of aggravated assault, and assessed punishment at seven years of confinement. Hope's appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). On December 18, 2008, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from appellant. We reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). We note that in the section entitled "Statute for Offense[,]" the judgment incorrectly recites that Hope was charged under section "22.011(a)(2)(A) Penal Code." 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); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993). Therefore, we delete this language and substitute "22.02(a)(1) Penal Code" in its place. We affirm the trial court's judgment as reformed. AFFIRMED AS REFORMED.
Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.