Opinion
NO. 14-16-00682-CR
01-11-2018
DERRACE RANDALL COSEY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 338th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1467421
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child. Appellant's appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirement of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 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 the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). At appellant's request, the record was provided to him. On July 27, 2017, appellant filed a pro se response to counsel's brief.
We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel's brief, and appellant's response, and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. However, the judgment nunc pro tunc contains a clerical error. The record reflects appellant's trial counsel was Ray Anthony Castro and the date of the offense was May 1, 2010. The judgment nunc pro tunc incorrectly reflects that trial counsel was Deborah Summers and the date of the offense was August 18, 2009. Accordingly, we modify the trial court's judgment to reflect appellant's trial counsel was Ray Anthony Castro, and the date of the offense was May 1, 2010. See French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (stating appellate court has authority to modify a judgment to "speak the truth").
In an appeal in which counsel has filed an Anders brief, we are not required to abate the 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.) (modifying judgment in Anders appeal to correct age of child complainant); Bray v. State, 179 S.W.3d 725, 730 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (modifying judgment in Anders appeal to delete improper condition of parole.
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).
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed as modified.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Busby and Wise.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).