Opinion
No. 01-02-00713-CR
Opinion issued July 17, 2003 Do not publish. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 184th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 736152
Panel consists of Chief Justice RADACK, and Justices ALCALA and HIGLEY.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Jaime Mendoza, was found to have violated the conditions of his deferred adjudication community supervision by the trial court. The court found appellant guilty of aggravated assault, and assessed punishment at confinement for two years and a fine of $250. We affirm the judgment, as modified. Appellant's court-appointed counsel filed a brief concluding that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds of error to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978);Moore v. State, 845 S.W.2d 352, 353 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet. ref'd). The brief states that a copy was delivered to appellant, whom counsel advised by letter of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro sebrief. 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 sebrief. We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We find no reversible error in the record. However, we do find nonreversible error in the judgment; it reads that appellant's first name is "Jamie." We may correct and modify the judgment of a trial court to make the record speak the truth when we have the necessary data and information to do so, or to make any appropriate order as the law and nature of the case may require. See Campbell v. State, 900 S.W.2d 763, 773 (Tex.App.-Waco 1995, no pet.); Tex.R.App.P. 43.2(b), 43.6. Accordingly, we modify the trial court's judgment to read that appellant's name is "Jaime" Mendoza. We affirm the judgment, as modified.
Counsel has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and also to inform appellant 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).