Opinion
No. 05-15-01309-CR
06-02-2016
JERRY SCOTT, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F15-55236-T
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Francis, Fillmore, and Schenck
Opinion by Justice Schenck
Jerry Scott waived a jury, pleaded guilty to unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, and pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.07(a) (West 2011). After finding appellant guilty and the enhancement paragraphs true, the trial court sentenced appellant to seven years' imprisonment. 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 judgment does not reflect the plea and findings on the second enhancement paragraph. The record shows appellant pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs and the trial court found both enhancement paragraphs true. However, the judgment does not show the plea or the finding on the second enhancement paragraph. Thus, on our own motion, we modify the judgment to show the "plea to 2nd enhancement/habitual paragraph" is "true" and the "findings on 2nd enhancement/habitual paragraph" is "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.
/David J. Schenck/
DAVID J. SCHENCK
JUSTICE Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47 151309F.U05
JUDGMENT
On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F15-55236-T.
Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck. Justices Francis and Fillmore participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows:
The section entitled "Plea to 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph" is modified to show "True."
The section entitled "Findings on 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph" is modified to show "True."
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court's judgment. Judgment entered this 2nd day of June, 2016.