GRANT; AFFIRMED as MODIFIED a nd 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, Par tida-Kipness, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Garcia A jury convicted appellant of indecency with a child and the co urt assessed punishment at nine years in prison. On appeal, appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in which he co ncludes the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requ irements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief pre sents a professional evalua tion 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) (deter mining 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 s e response, but he did2 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 judgmen t to correct the error. Specifically, the judgment errone ously describes the case as a trial before the court, but the case was tried to a jur y and the court assessed punishm ent. We may correct and modify the judgment of a trial court to make the record spe ak 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.—D allas 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 [1 st Dist.] Jan. 9, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (s ame). 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 punish ment. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.2(b). As required, appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdra w 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 cou nsel 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 befo re 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. Se e Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(a), (b)

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b) 200299F.U05 /Dennise Garcia/ DENNISE GARCIA JUSTICE4 

# 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 o f this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED to reflect that the case was tri ed to a jury and the court ass essed punishment. As REFORMED , the judgment is AFFIRMED . Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
Judgment entered May 11, 2021