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 BENIT EZ , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F11 - 53117 - U , F11 - 62850 - U, No. F12 - 52399 - U, and F12 - 55564 - U MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices My ers, 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

- 0 1 210

- CR; F11

- 53117

- U); (2) theft of property valued at least $ 20,000 but less than $ 100,000 (05

- 18

- 0 1 211

- CR; F11

- 62850

- U); (3) theft of property , aggregate value at least $100,000 but less than $200,000 ( 05

- 18

- 01 212

- CR ; F12

- 52399

- U); (4) theft of property , aggregate value at least $20,000 but less than $100,000 ( 05

- 18

-– 2

–

01 213

- 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 conclude s 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 Hig h 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, bu t 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. 20 05) (explaining appellate court’ s duty in Anders cases). We agree the appeals a re frivolous and without merit, and we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals. Although not an arguable i ssue, we note that the four judgments adjudicating guilt recite th at the name of the attorney for the defendant was “ Pamela Muhammad, ” when the reporter’s record shows her name wa s “ Pamela Segura

Muhammad. ” Accordingly, on our own motion, we modify the se ction of each judgment entitled “ Attorney for Defendant” to show that the name of the attorney– 3

–

for the defendant was “Pamela Segura

- Muhammad.” T EX . R. A PP . 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, w e affirm the trial court’ s judgments adjudicating guilt.

Do Not Publish T EX . R. A PP . 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 6 th 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 t he 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 6 th 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 6 th 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 pa rticipating. 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: Pamel a Segura

- Muhammad.” As REFORMED , the judgment is AFFIRMED
. Judgment entered this 6 th day of April, 2020
.