AFFIRMED as MODIFIED; Opinion Filed April 6, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-18-01210-CR

No. 05-18-01211-CR

No. 05-18-01212-CR

No. 05-18–01213-CR

JUAN VELASQUEZ BENITEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F11-53117-U, F11-62850-U, No. F12-52399-U, and 

F12-55564-U

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Schenck, and Carlyle

Opinion by Justice Myers

Appellant Juan Velasquez Benitez appeals his convictions, following the 

adjudication of his guilt, for (1) unauthorized use of a motor vehicle (05-18-01210-

CR; F11-53117-U); (2) theft of property valued at least $20,000 but less than 

$100,000 (05-18-01211-CR; F11-62850-U); (3) theft of property, aggregate value 

at least $100,000 but less than $200,000 (05-18-01212-CR; F12-52399-U); (4) 

theft of property, aggregate value at least $20,000 but less than $100,000 (05-18-
–2–

01213-CR; F12-55564-U). The trial court assessed punishment at two years’ 

confinement in cause 01210-CR, and eight years in the other three cases. 

On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the 

appeals are wholly 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 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 attests that 

she served a copy of the brief on appellant. We advised appellant of his right to 

file a pro se response, but he has not filed a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 

S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (appellant has right to file pro se 

response to Anders brief filed by counsel).

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 

S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in 

Anders cases). We agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit, and we find 

nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals.

Although not an arguable issue, we note that the four judgments adjudicating 

guilt recite that the name of the attorney for the defendant was “Pamela 

Muhammad,” when the reporter’s record shows her name was “Pamela SeguraMuhammad.” Accordingly, on our own motion, we modify the section of each 

judgment entitled “Attorney for Defendant” to show that the name of the attorney 
–3–

for the defendant was “Pamela Segura-Muhammad.” TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); 

Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (courts of appeals 

have authority to modify a judgment); Estrada v. State, 334 S.W.3d 57, 63–64 

(Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.) (same).

As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgments adjudicating guilt.

Do Not Publish

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

181210F.U05

/Lana Myers/

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
–4–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JUAN VELASQUEZ BENITEZ, 

Appellant

No. 05-18-01210-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-53117-U.

Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. 

Justices Schenck and Carlyle 

participating.

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

MODIFIED as follows:

* The portion of the judgment entitled “Attorney for Defendant: 

Pamela Muhammad” should be changed to read: “Attorney for 

Defendant: Pamela Segura-Muhammad.” 

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered this 6th day of April, 2020.
–5–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JUAN VELASQUEZ BENITEZ, 

Appellant

No. 05-18-01211-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-62850-U.

Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. 

Justices Schenck and Carlyle 

participating.

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

MODIFIED as follows:

* The portion of the judgment entitled “Attorney for Defendant: 

Pamela Muhammad” should be changed to read: “Attorney for 

Defendant: Pamela Segura-Muhammad.” 

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered this 6th day of April, 2020.
–6–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JUAN VELASQUEZ BENITEZ, 

Appellant

No. 05-18-01212-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-52399-U.

Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. 

Justices Schenck and Carlyle 

participating.

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

MODIFIED as follows:

* The portion of the judgment entitled “Attorney for Defendant: 

Pamela Muhammad” should be changed to read: “Attorney for 

Defendant: Pamela Segura-Muhammad.” 

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered this 6th day of April, 2020.
–7–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JUAN VELASQUEZ BENITEZ, 

Appellant

No. 05-18-01213-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-55564-U.

Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. 

Justices Schenck and Carlyle 

participating.

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

MODIFIED as follows:

* The portion of the judgment entitled “Attorney for Defendant: 

Pamela Muhammad” should be changed to read: “Attorney for 

Defendant: Pamela Segura-Muhammad.” 

As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered this 6th day of April, 2020.