From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sutherland v. State

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
Jan 25, 2012
NO. 09-11-00354-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 25, 2012)

Opinion

NO. 09-11-00354-CR

01-25-2012

DAVID BEN SUTHERLAND, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 06-96504


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, David Ben Sutherland pleaded guilty to felony driving while intoxicated. The trial court found Sutherland guilty, assessed punishment at seven years in prison, suspended imposition of sentence, and placed Sutherland on community supervision for seven years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Sutherland's community supervision. Sutherland pleaded "true" to violating two conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Sutherland violated the conditions of his community supervision, revoked Sutherland's community supervision, and sentenced Sutherland to seven years in prison.

Sutherland's appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On September 29, 2011, we granted an extension of time for Sutherland to file a pro se brief. We received no response from Sutherland. We reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

We note that in the plea agreement, the State abandoned the "open container" allegation. In the judgment, however, the offense is incorrectly listed as "FELONY DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED (WITH OPEN CONTAINER)." This Court has the authority to reform the trial court's judgment to correct a clerical error. Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Therefore, we delete "(WITH OPEN CONTAINER)" from the section of the judgment entitled "Offense for which Defendant Convicted[.]" We affirm the trial court's judgment as reformed.

Sutherland may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.

AFFIRMED AS REFORMED.

_____________________

STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.


Summaries of

Sutherland v. State

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
Jan 25, 2012
NO. 09-11-00354-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 25, 2012)
Case details for

Sutherland v. State

Case Details

Full title:DAVID BEN SUTHERLAND, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

Date published: Jan 25, 2012

Citations

NO. 09-11-00354-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 25, 2012)