From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. State

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
Jan 4, 2012
NO. 09-11-00421-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 4, 2012)

Opinion

NO. 09-11-00421-CR

01-04-2012

PEARCE LEVAR WILLIAMS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 09-06936


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Pearce Levar Williams pled guilty to the offense of Possession of a Controlled Substance (cocaine). The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Williams guilty, but deferred finding him guilty. The trial court placed Williams on community supervision for three years and assessed a fine of $500. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Williams' unadjudicated community supervision. Williams pled "true" to four violations of the terms of his community supervision. The trial court found that Williams violated the terms of the community supervision order, revoked Williams' community supervision, and imposed a sentence of two years of confinement.

Williams' 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 15, 2011, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant.

We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. However, in our review of the record, we noted that the judgment incorrectly ordered Williams to pay $350, the costs of production of a presentence investigation report, even though he waived the PSI in this cause. We have the authority to reform the trial court's judgment to correct a clerical error. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd). We therefore reform the judgment and subtract the $350 charge from the administrative fees. We modify the judgment to reflect an administrative fee of $1,912. 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 affirm the trial court's judgment as reformed.

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

AFFIRMED AS REFORMED.

___________

CHARLES KREGER

Justice
Do not publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.


Summaries of

Williams v. State

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
Jan 4, 2012
NO. 09-11-00421-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 4, 2012)
Case details for

Williams v. State

Case Details

Full title:PEARCE LEVAR WILLIAMS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

Date published: Jan 4, 2012

Citations

NO. 09-11-00421-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 4, 2012)