Opinion
No. 05-19-00957-CR
06-16-2020
KEDRIC DEJUAN ROGERS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F17-70756-N
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Whitehill, Osborne, and Carlyle
Opinion by Justice Carlyle
Appellant Kedric Dejuan Rogers pleaded guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the trial court deferred adjudication, placed Mr. Rogers on community supervision for five years, and assessed a $2,000.00 fine.
A year later, the State filed a motion to adjudicate Mr. Rogers's guilt, alleging he violated several terms and conditions of his community supervision. Mr. Rogers pleaded not true to the allegations in the motion to adjudicate. After a hearing, the trial court found Mr. Rogers violated his community supervision terms and conditions, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to twenty-five years' imprisonment. Mr. Rogers filed a timely notice of appeal.
Mr. Rogers's appointed counsel on appeal has filed a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel's brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record showing why there are no arguable grounds to advance. Id. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
Mr. Rogers was provided a copy of the brief and, by letter dated January 2, 2020, we advised him of his right to file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (noting appellant has right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel). Mr. Rogers responded but presents no arguable grounds to advance.
We have reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and the pro se response. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court's duty in Anders cases). We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal and we conclude the appeal is frivolous and without merit.
Although not an arguable issue, we note that the judgment contains a clerical error. The judgment states Mr. Rogers pleaded "true" to the motion to adjudicate, but the record reflects he pleaded "not true" to that motion. Accordingly, we modify the trial court's judgment to show that the "Plea to Motion to Adjudicate" was "not true." See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (appellate court has authority to modify judgment to correct clerical errors).
We affirm the trial court's judgment as modified.
/Cory L. Carlyle/
CORY L. CARLYLE
JUSTICE Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
190957F.U05
JUDGMENT
On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F17-70756-N.
Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle. Justices Whitehill and Osborne participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED to state appellant pleaded "not true" to the motion to adjudicate.
As MODIFIED, the judgment is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered this 16th day of June, 2020.