Sheldon Tobias Brown v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 28, 2018
• Docket: 14-17-00584-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed as Modified and Memorandum Opinion filed June 28, 2018.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-17-00584-CR

SHELDON TOBIAS BROWN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 264th District Court Bell County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 76599

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Sheldon Tobias Brown appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011). 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). 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 nunc pro tunc, signed July 6, 2017, contains clerical errors. That judgment incorrectly states appellant pleaded not guilty to the offense and not true to the first and second enhancement paragraphs. The record reflects appellant pleaded guilty to the offense and true to the first and only 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: (1) the “Plea to Offense” is “GUILTY”; (2) the “Plea to 1st Enhancement Paragraph” is “TRUE”; (3) the “Plea to 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph” is “NOT APPLICABLE”; and (4) the “Findings on 2nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph” is “NOT APPLICABLE.”

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed as modified.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Christopher, and Busby Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).