Robert Chadwin Miller v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 12, 2020
• Docket: 14-19-00026-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed as Modified and Memorandum Opinion filed March 12, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00026-CR

ROBERT CHADWIN MILLER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 440th District Court Coryell County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 17-24004

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Robert Chadwin Miller appeals his conviction for assault of a family or household member with previous conviction. 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). Appellant filed a pro se response.

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro se responseand 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 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).

However, the judgment revoking community supervision contains a clerical error. That judgment incorrectly states appellant pleaded “not true” to the first enhancement paragraph. The record reflects appellant pleaded “true” to the first enhancement paragraph. 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 1st Enhancement Paragraph” is “TRUE.” We affirm the judgment as modified.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Poissant.

Do Not Publish — Tex.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