Opinion
No. 14-10-00576-CR
Opinion filed May 5, 2011. DO NOT PUBLISH — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 412th District Court Brazoria County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 60,562.
Panel consists of Chief Justice HEDGES, Justices SEYMORE and BOYCE.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted appellant of two counts of aggravated assault. On the first count, the jury found a deadly weapon (a vehicle) was used and sentenced appellant to confinement for sixty-eight years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. On the second count, the jury found a deadly weapon (a knife) was used and sentenced appellant to confinement for forty-five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. On both counts, the jury assessed a fine of $10,000 and found family violence was involved in the commission of the offense. The judgment provides the sentences are to run concurrently. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellant's appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirement of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). At appellant's request, the record was provided to him. On March 10, 2011, appellant filed a pro se response to counsel's brief. We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and appellant's response, and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). There is, however, an error in the judgment, as pointed out by appellant. The judgment provides the sentences are "Concurrent Unless Otherwise Specified" but the amount of the fine is $20,000.00. The jury assessed a fine of $10,000.00 for each offense. Because the sentences are concurrent, the judgment should reflect a fine of only $10,000.00. See State v. Crook, 248 S.W.3d 172, 177 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) ("the concurrent sentences provision of [Tex. Pen. Code] Section 3.03(a) applies to the entire sentence, including fines."). An appellate court has the power to correct and reform a trial court judgment to make the record speak the truth when it has the necessary data and information to do so. Nolan v. State, 39 S.W.3d 697, 698 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (citing Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd)); see also Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b). Similar errors have been corrected in other Anders cases. See Siverand v. State, No. 14-08-01083-CR, 2009 WL 2579834, at *1 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist] 2009, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Webb v. State, No. 05-96-01382-CR, 1997 WL 412093, at *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1997, no pet.) (not designated for publication); and Houston v. State, No. 01-98-01311-CR, 2000 WL 964646, 1 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (not designated for publication). Accordingly, we reform the judgment of conviction to reflect a fine of $10,000.00. As reformed, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.