Charles Hardaway v. State

Opinion

Affirmed as Modified and Memorandum Opinion filed July 11, 2019

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-18-00284-CR

CHARLES HARDAWAY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 403rd District Court Travis County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D-1-DC-15-203546

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Charles Hardaway appeals the judgment revoking his community supervision. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42A.755(e). Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of his right to inspect the appellate record and file a pro se response to the brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than 60 days have passed and no pro se response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

However, the judgment revoking community supervision, signed February 22, 2018, contains a clerical error. That judgment incorrectly states appellant pleaded “true” to the motion to revoke. The record reflects appellant pleaded “not true” to the motion to revoke. We are not required to abate an Anders appeal for appointment of new counsel if the judgment can be modified. See Ferguson v. State, 435 S.W.3d 291, 295 (Tex. App.—Waco 2014, no pet.); Bray v. State, 179 S.W.3d 725, 730 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.).

Therefore, we modify the judgment as follows: the “Plea to Motion to Revoke” is “NOT TRUE.”

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed as modified.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Hassan.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).