From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rose v. State

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
Dec 1, 2014
No. 05-12-01078-CR (Tex. App. Dec. 1, 2014)

Opinion

No. 05-12-01078-CR

12-01-2014

ERIC ROSE, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1 Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F11-55385-Y

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Myers and Brown
Opinion by Chief Justice Wright

Eric Rose pleaded guilty before a jury to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and true to an enhancement paragraph alleging a prior felony conviction. The jury assessed punishment at seventy-five years' imprisonment. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011). On appeal, appellant's attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-12 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying duties of appellate courts and counsel in Anders cases).

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court's duty in Anders cases). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

Although not an arguable issue, we note the section of the trial court's judgment that pertains to the enhancement paragraph incorrectly states "n/a." We modify the trial court's judgment to show that appellant pleaded true to the enhancement paragraph and that the paragraph was found true. 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).

As modified, we affirm the trial court's judgment. Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
121078F.U05

/Carolyn Wright/

CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGMENT

Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F11-55385-Y).
Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright, Justices Myers and Brown participating.

Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the trial court's judgment is MODIFIED as follows:

The section entitled "plea to 1st Enhancement paragraph" is modified to show "True."

The section entitled "Findings on 1st Enhancement paragraph" is modified to show "True."

As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court's judgment.


Summaries of

Rose v. State

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
Dec 1, 2014
No. 05-12-01078-CR (Tex. App. Dec. 1, 2014)
Case details for

Rose v. State

Case Details

Full title:ERIC ROSE, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

Date published: Dec 1, 2014

Citations

No. 05-12-01078-CR (Tex. App. Dec. 1, 2014)