Affirmed as Modified; Opinion Filed October 30, 2013.

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 0 1485
- CR
LOUIS HANCOCK DAITCH , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal Distri ct Court No. 3 Da llas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F 0 4
- 44009
- J 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Moseley, Lang, and Brown Opinion b y Justice Lang Louis Hancock Daitch appeals from the revocation of his community supervision for the offense of possession of cocai ne in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams.
T EX
. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN
. § 481.115(a), (d) (West 2010) . The trial court assessed punishment at ten years’ imprisonment and ordered the sentence to run consecutively with the sentence in cause no. F11

- 45640

- J (cause no. 05

- 12

- 01487

- CR)

. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which s he concludes the appeal is 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, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to- 2

- advance. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. Appel lant filed a pro se response raising several issues After reviewing counsel’s brief, appellant’s pro se response, and the record, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explai ning appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Although not an arguable issue, we note the first page of the judgment incorrectly states

“ this sentence shall run concurrently.” The reco rd shows the trial judge ordered the sentence in this case to run consecutively with the sentence imposed in case no. F11

- 45640

- J. The paragraph containing the cumulation order is located on the second page of the judgment. Accordingly, w e modify the se ction of the trial court’s judgment that says “punishment and place of confinement” to state this sentence will run consecutively with the sentence in case no. F11

- 45640

- J. See T EX . R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley , 865 S.W.2d at 27

– 28; Asberry , 813 S.W.2d at 5 29

– 30. As modified, w e affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/s/ Douglas Lang DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 121485F.U05- 3

- 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

JUDGMENT

LOUIS HANCOCK DAITCH , Appellant
No. 05

- 12

- 0 1485

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F 04

- 44009

- J ). Opinion delivered by Justice Lang , Justices Moseley and Brown participating.

Based on the Court’s o pinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIED as follows: The section entitled “Punishment and Place of Confinement” is modified to show “This sentence shall run consecutively (see below).” As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.

Judgment entered October 30 , 2013.

/s/ Douglas Lang DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE