Eric Shakur Lavigne v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 2, 2024
• Docket: 06-23-00221-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-23-00221-CR

ERIC SHAKUR LAVIGNE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 71st District Court Harrison County, Texas Trial Court No. 22-0056X

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef MEMORANDUM OPINION

On May 30, 2023, Eric Shakur Lavigne pled guilty to evading arrest or detention with a

vehicle,1 and the trial court placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision for ten

years. On September 29, 2023, the trial court adjudicated Lavigne’s guilt, revoked his

community supervision, and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. Lavigne appeals the

judgment adjudicating his guilt.

Lavigne’s appellate counsel filed a brief that outlined the procedural history of the case,

provided a detailed summary of the evidence elicited during the trial court proceedings, and

stated that counsel found no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel provided a

professional evaluation of the record and demonstrated why there are no arguable grounds to be

advanced, as required by law. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State,

813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex.

Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

Lavigne’s counsel filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this

appeal and provided Lavigne with copies of the brief and the motion to withdraw. His counsel

also informed Lavigne of his rights to review the record and to file a pro se response and

provided him with a paper copy of the appellate record on February 27, 2024. By letter dated

February 27, 2024, we notified Lavigne that his pro se response was due on or before

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.04(b)(2)(A). 2 March 28, 2024. We also notified Lavigne by letter dated April 10, 2024, that the case would be

submitted on briefs on May 1, 2024. Lavigne did not file a pro se response.

We reviewed the entire appellate record and independently determined that no reversible

error exists. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “However,

appellate courts are authorized to reform judgments and affirm as modified in Anders cases

involving non-reversible error.” Mitchell v. State, 653 S.W.3d 295, 297 (Tex. App.—Texarkana

2022, no pet.) (comprehensively discussing appellate cases that have modified judgments in

Anders cases). In this case, the judgment adjudicating guilt has an entry under “Terms of Plea

Bargain” that recites “OPEN PLEA TO COURT, JUDGE ASSESSED PUNISHMENT AT 8

YEARS TDCJ, CREDIT FOR TIME SERVED AND RUN CONSECUTIVE WITH 22-0336X.”

Also, an “X” is entered in the box beside “Terms of Plea Bargain are attached and incorporated

herein by this reference.” However, the record shows that there was no plea-bargain agreement

related to the State’s motion to adjudicate. Consequently, we will modify the judgment

adjudicating guilt by deleting the recited entry and by deleting the “X” in the referenced box.

Also, the caption of the judgment adjudicating guilt spells Lavigne’s last name as

“Lavine.” However, the record shows that the correct spelling is “Lavigne.” Consequently, we

modify the caption of the judgment adjudicating guilt by replacing “Lavine” with “Lavigne.”

3 In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must either

dismiss the appeal or affirm the trial court’s judgment. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826–27.

Thus, we affirm the trial court’s judgment, as modified.2

Charles van Cleef Justice

Date Submitted: May 1, 2024 Date Decided: May 2, 2024

Do Not Publish

2 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. 4