GRANT; AFFIRMED as MODIFIED and Opinion Filed May 11, 2021 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00299-CR 

JOSE MONTADELGADO, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F-1953575-L 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Myers, Partida-Kipness, and Garcia 

Opinion by Justice Garcia 

A jury convicted appellant of indecency with a child and the court assessed 

punishment at nine years in prison. 

On appeal, appellant’s counsel has 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). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the 

record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High 

v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining 

whether brief meets requirements of Anders). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief 

to appellant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did 
2 

not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2014) (noting appellant has right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed 

by counsel). 

Although not an arguable issue, counsel’s Anders brief notes a clerical error 

in the trial court’s judgment and asks us to modify the judgment to correct the error. 

Specifically, the judgment erroneously describes the case as a trial before the court, 

but the case was tried to a jury and the court assessed punishment. We may correct 

and modify the judgment of a trial court to make the record speak the truth when we 

have the necessary data and information to do so. See Ray v. State, No. 05-17-00820, 

2018 WL 1149421, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 5, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication) (modifying judgment in Anders appeal); Davis v. State, 

No. 01-02-00404-CR, 2003 WL 139655, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 

9, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (same). The record 

supports the requested modification. Accordingly, we modify the judgment to reflect 

that the case was tried to a jury and the court assessed punishment. TEX. R. APP. P.

43.2(b). 

As required, appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has 

provided appellant with a copy of the motion. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 

407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for 

consideration with the merits. 
3 

 Having modified the judgment to correct the clerical error counsel identified, 

and having reviewed the record, we agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly 

frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record before us that arguably 

might support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm the trial 

court’s judgment as modified. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(a), (b) 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 

200299F.U05 

 

/Dennise Garcia/ 

DENNISE GARCIA 

JUSTICE 
4 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

JOSE MONTADELGADO, 

Appellant 

No. 05-20-00299-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the Criminal District 

Court No. 5, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F19-53575-L. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia. 

Justices Myers and Partida-Kipness 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

MODIFIED to reflect that the case was tried to a jury and the court assessed 

punishment. 

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is 

GRANTED. 

Judgment entered May 11, 2021