Opinion
Nos. 05-07-00057-CR, 05-07-00058-CR
Opinion Filed February 8, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F06-60888-VJ, F06-87561-NJ.
Before Justices FITZGERALD, LANG-MIERS, and MAZZANT.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Daniel Ray Pena waived a jury and pleaded guilty to assault-family violence with a prior conviction for assault-family violence and failure to register as a sex offender. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.01 (Vernon Supp. 2007); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 62.102(a) (Vernon 2006). In the assault case, the trial court assessed punishment at two years' confinement, probated for five years, and a $1000 fine. Subsequently, the trial court found appellant violated the terms of his community supervision, revoked appellant's community supervision, and assessed punishment at two years imprisonment. In the registration case, the trial court assessed punishment, enhanced by a prior felony conviction, at fourteen years' imprisonment. Appellant's attorney filed briefs in which she concludes these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The briefs meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The briefs present a professional evaluation of the records showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered copies of the briefs to appellant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response. We have reviewed the records and counsel's briefs. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We agree these appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the records that might arguably support these appeals. Counsel notes the trial court's judgment in cause no. 05-07-00058-CR contains a clerical error in the designation of the statute under which appellant was convicted, but it is not an arguable ground for relief. We agree that the trial court's judgment erroneously states the statute for the offense as "62.10 Penal Code." We modify the trial court's judgment to show the statute for the offense is "62.102(a) Code of Criminal Procedure." See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529-30 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd). In cause no. 05-07-00057-CR, we affirm the trial court's judgment. In cause no. 05-07-00058-CR, we affirm the trial court's judgment as modified.