Ja Corrie Stefon Rogers v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided July 18, 2019·No. 14-18-00548-CR·Published

Opinion

Affirmed as Modified and Memorandum Opinion filed July 18, 2019.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-18-00548-CR

JA CORRIE STEFON ROGERS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 248th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1536743

MEMORANDUM OPINION Ja Corrie Stefon Rogers appeals his conviction for murder. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 19.01(b)(1), (b)(2). Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she 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 contains a clerical error. On the second page, the judgment incorrectly states, “APPEAL WAIVED. NO PERMISSION TO APPEAL GRANTED.” The record reflects the trial court granted appellant permission to appeal. 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: “APPEAL WAIVED. NO PERMISSION TO APPEAL GRANTED.” is deleted and replaced with “PERMISSION TO APPEAL GRANTED.” We affirm the judgment revoking community supervision as modified.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Hassan.

Do Not Publish — Tex.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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ja Corrie Stefon Rogers v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2019).

Ja Corrie Stefon Rogers v. State (Ja Corrie Stefon Rogers v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Bray v. State
179 S.W.3d 725 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Bledsoe v. State
178 S.W.3d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Ferguson v. State
435 S.W.3d 291 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2014)