Joshua Oneal White v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 17, 2011
• Docket: 14-10-00830-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed As Reformed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 17, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-10-00829-CR

NO. 14-10-00830-CR

JOSHUA ONEAL WHITE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 412th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 59,937 & 59,938

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

            Appellant entered pleas of guilty, without an agreed recommendation on punishment, in both of these cases.  In cause number 59,937, he was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery in a criminal episode.  In cause number 59,938, appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery.  After a pre-sentence investigation, the trial court sentenced appellant on July 22, 2010, to confinement for twelve years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in each case, with the sentences to be served concurrently.  Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

            Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes that these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit.  The brief meets the requirement of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the records and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.  See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

            A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant.  Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate records and file a pro se response.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  At appellant’s request, the record was provided to him.  On April 28, 2011, appellant filed a pro se response to counsel’s brief.

            We have carefully reviewed the records, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s response, and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  Further, we find no reversible error in the record.  A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.  We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response 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). 

            In each case, the judgments reflect that an affirmative finding of the use of a deadly weapon was made.  The record from the sentencing hearing contains the trial court’s statement that he did not make a finding of a deadly weapon in each case.  Appellant requests, and the State agrees, that the judgments should be reformed.  See French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 530 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d).  Accordingly, we reform the judgments to delete the deadly weapon finding in each case, and as reformed, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

                                                                        PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Brown, and Christopher.

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