Charleston Roshun Cobbin v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 10, 2021
• Docket: 14-18-00749-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 10, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-18-00749-CR

CHARLESTON ROSHUN COBBIN, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 248th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1506318

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Charleston Roshun Cobbin appeals his conviction for manufacture or delivery of a controlled substance. 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 adjudicating guilt contains a clerical error. That judgment incorrectly states appellant pleaded “true” to the motion to adjudicate. The record reflects that the trial court entered a plea of “not true” to the motion to adjudicate on behalf of appellant. 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 Adjudicate” is “NOT TRUE.” We affirm the judgment as modified.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Bourliot and Zimmerer.

Do Not Publish — Tex.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