Opinion
05-21-00247-CR
06-16-2022
AKEASHYA KARI THOMAS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do Not Publish Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b)
On Appeal from the 196th District Court Hunt County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 31768
Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Nowell
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ERIN A. NOWELL, JUSTICE
Akeashya Kari Thomas pleaded guilty to the offense of injury to a child with intent to cause bodily injury. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for five years. The State filed a motion to revoke, alleging violations of four conditions of appellant's community supervision. The trial court adjudicated appellant guilty of the offense, revoked appellant's community supervision, sentenced her to ten years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, suspended the sentence, and placed her on community supervision for five years.
On appeal, appellant's attorney filed a brief concluding the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Appellant filed a pro se response that we interpret as arguing ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives an Anders brief and a pro se response, the reviewing court has two choices. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). After conducting an independent examination of the record, the appellate court "may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error. Or it may determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues." Id. at 826-27 (internal citation omitted). The appellate court does not address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or in a pro se response when it has determined there are no arguable grounds for review. Id. at 827.
We independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, including the issue raised in appellant's pro se response. We conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds for review, and, therefore, the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (reviewing court, and not counsel, determines-after full examination of proceedings-whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for appeal exist).
Although not an arguable issue, the trial court's judgment incorrectly states appellant pleaded "not true" to paragraph 2 of the State's motion to adjudicate. The record shows appellant pleaded "true" to paragraph 2 of the motion to adjudicate.
Appellate courts may modify a trial court's judgment and affirm it as modified. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). This Court "has the power to correct and reform the judgment of the court below to make the record speak the truth when it has the necessary data and information to do so." Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex. App.- Dallas 1991, writ ref'd). Appellate courts may reform trial court judgments where "the evidence necessary to correct the judgment appears in the record." Id. Accordingly, we modify the section of the judgment titled "Plea to Motion to Adjudicate" to read "True to Paragraph 2 and Not True to Paragraph 3."
As modified, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
JUDGMENT
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows:
We MODIFY the section of the judgment titled "Plea to Motion to Adjudicate" to read "True to Paragraph 2 and Not True to Paragraph 3."
As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered.