Opinion
No. 05-03-01613-CR
Opinion Filed September 27, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.
On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F98-53341-LP. Affirm As Modified.
Before Justices MORRIS, MOSELEY, and FITZGERALD.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Charles Edward Taylor appeals his conviction of robbery. After entering a negotiated guilty plea, appellant was placed on community supervision. During the term of community supervision, the State filed a motion to revoke, alleging appellant had committed two sexual assaults and several other violations of the conditions of community supervision. In a joint trial and revocation hearing, the trial court convicted appellant of the two sexual assaults and revoked his community supervision. For the robbery conviction, the trial court assessed punishment at six years confinement and a $500 fine. After modifying the judgment, we will affirm. Appellant's attorney filed a brief in which she 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 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant he has a right to file a pro se response. Appellant, however, did not file a pro se response. We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. We will, however, modify the trial court's judgment to reflect accurately the grounds for revocation. As grounds for revocation, the judgment incorporates the State's amended motion to revoke supervision. The State's amended motion alleges eight violations. The trial court, however, found one alleged violation-asserting appellant violated condition "m" by submitting diluted urine samples-to be "not true." Because the judgment does not state the trial court found one allegation to be not true, the judgment does not accurately state the grounds for revocation. We have the authority to modify incorrect judgments when the necessary information is available to do so. 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 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd). Accordingly, we modify the trial court's October 10, 2003 judgment revoking community supervision to reflect the trial court did not find a violation of community supervision condition "m." As modified, we affirm the trial court's judgment.