Modified and Affirmed and Opinion Filed December 14, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 21 - 00961 - CR No. 05 - 21 - 00962 - CR BRIAN SYLVESTER DIGG S , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F20 - 52897 - M & F20 - 52898 - M

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Pedersen, III, and Garcia

Opinion by Justice Myers App ellant Brian Sylvester Diggs entered negotiated pleas of guilty and judicial confessions in two cases: (1) possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams in cause number 05

- 21

- 00961

- CR; and (2) possession of heroin in an amount less than

one gram in cause number 05

- 21

- 00962

- CR. The court accepted the pleas and , in accordance with the terms of the respective plea agreements, placed appellant on five years of deferred adjudication probation in eac h case. Appellant subsequently entered pleas of true to allegations in the State’s motions to adjudicate in the two– 2

–

cases. The court adjudicated appellant guilty and revoked his probation in the two

cases. In cause 05

- 21

- 00961

- CR, the court sentenced ap pellant to fifteen years of confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) , and in cause 05

- 21

- 00962

- CR, the court sentenced appellant to one year in the State Jail Division of the TDCJ. Appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel certifies that he provided appellant with a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw. 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

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining whether brief meets requirements of Anders ); see also Arevalos v. State , 606 S.W.3d 912, 915

– 16 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2020, no pet.) (citin g High and concluding Anders brief in support of motion to withdraw did not meet requirements of Anders and was deficient as to form). We advised appellant by letter of his right to file a pro se response, but he has not filed a pro se response. See Kell y 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– 3

–

S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit, and we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Although not arguable issue s , we note one clerical error in the judgment in cause 05

- 21

- 00962

- CR , and a separate clerical error in each of the judgment s . Appellant was convicted of the state jail felony offense of possession of less than

one gram of heroin under section 481.115(b). See T EX
. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE § 481.115(b). But the written judgment in 00962

- CR incorrectly states that the applicable statute is section 481.115(c). In addition, the judgments in each of the

case s state that the attorney for the State was Thelma Anderson, while the reporter’s record shows the a ttorney for the State to be Amy Lockhart. When the record provides the necessary information to correct inaccuracies in the trial court’s judgment, we have the authority to reform the judgment to speak the truth. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State , 865 S.W.2d 26, 27

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State , 813 S.W.2d 526, 529

– 30 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d). Accordingly, we modify the judgment in 05

- 21

- 00962

- CR to reflect that appellant was convicted of the state jail felony offense of possession of less than one gram of h eroin under section 481.115(b), and we further modify each judgment to reflect that the attorney for the State was Amy Lockhart.– 4

–

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and, as modified, affirm the judgment.

210961f.u05 210962f.u05 Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 47.2(b) /Lana Mye rs/ / LANA MYERS JUSTICE– 5

– 

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

JUDGMENT BRIAN SYLVESTER DIGGS, Appellant No. 05

- 21

- 00961

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F20

- 52897

- M. Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. Justices Pedersen, III and Garcia 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 State” is changed to “Amy Lockhart SBOT 24056758. As REFORMED , the judgment is AFFIRMED

. The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected judgment that reflects the modifications made in this Court’s opinion and judgment in this case. Judgment entered this 14 th day of December, 2022.– 6

– 

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

JUDGMENT BRIAN SYLVESTER DIGGS, Appellant No. 05

- 21

- 00962

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F20

- 52898

- M

. Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. Justices Pedersen , III and Garcia 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 “Statute for Offense” is changed to “481.115(b) Health and Safety Code.” The portion of the judgment entitled “Attorney for State” is changed to “Amy Lockhart SBOT 24056758 As REFORMED , the judgment is AFFIRMED

. The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected judgment that reflects the modifications made in this Court’s opinio n and judgment in this case. Judgment entered this 14 th day of December, 2022.