Chris Jamal Landor v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-25-00109-CR

________________

CHRIS JAMAL LANDOR, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 23DCCR1103

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Appellant Chris Jamal Landor pleaded guilty to the offense of evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle, a third- degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04(b)(2)(A). The trial court found Landor guilty of the offense of evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle. The trial court sentenced him to ten years of confinement plus a $1,000 fine, then suspended the sentence and placed him on community supervision for ten years.

2

Subsequently, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Community Supervision based on a curfew violation and arrest for burglary of a habitation. The State then filed a First Amended Motion to Revoke Community Supervision alleging additional violations of the terms of Landor’s community supervision. Landor pleaded “true” to the first alleged violation regarding curfew, which the State abandoned. Landor then pleaded “not true” to the remaining alleged violations, including 2, 3, and 4. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found allegations 2, 3, and 4 to be “true.” The trial court revoked Landor’s community supervision and assessed punishment at ten years of confinement plus the $1,000 fine.

Landor’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief presenting counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes that the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On August 4, 2025, after Landor’s counsel filed the Anders brief, we granted an extension for Landor to file a pro se brief, but Landor filed no response.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in an Anders brief. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine: (1) “that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[;]” or (2) “that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand

3

the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.” Id. (citation omitted).

Upon receiving an Anders brief, a court must conduct a full examination of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and apart from the modification discussed below, we have found no reversible error, and we conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827–28. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Modifying the Judgment

We have the power to reform or modify a judgment in Anders cases to address non-reversible error and to affirm the judgment as modified. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b) (allowing appellate court to modify trial court’s judgment and affirm as modified); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (noting a court of appeals may modify the lower court’s judgment by correcting or reforming it); Bray v. State, 179 S.W.3d 725, 729 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (exercising authority to reform judgment in Anders case and affirming trial court’s judgment).

4

Here, the trial court’s Judgment Revoking Community Supervision incorrectly states that Landor pleaded “true” to allegations 2, 3, and 4. We can modify the judgment “to make the record speak the truth.” French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); see Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b). Therefore, consistent with the record in this case, we modify the trial court’s Judgment Revoking Community Supervision to reflect that Landor pleaded “not true” to allegations 2, 3, and 4, and that the trial court found those allegations to be “true.” We affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified. 1 AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

W. SCOTT GOLEMON

Chief Justice

Submitted on August 17, 2026 Opinion Delivered August 19, 2026 Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.

1 Landor may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.