1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-15-00002-CR

____________________

WANDA KOLACEK, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 253rd District Court

Liberty County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CR30214 (Counts 1 and 2) 

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

In an open plea, Wanda Kolacek (Kolacek) pleaded guilty to two counts of 

forgery of a government document. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.21(e) (West 

2011). Kolacek waived a jury trial. Kolacek pleaded “true” in each count to the 

State’s allegation that she had been convicted of committing nine prior felonies. 

Based on Kolacek’s pleas, the trial court assessed a two-year sentence for each 

count, to be served concurrently, and also ordered restitution in the amount of 

$1,100.00 in Count I. Kolacek timely filed a notice of appeal. 
2

Kolacek’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional 

evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1978). On August 13, 2015, and September 17, 2015, we granted extensions of 

time for Kolacek to file a pro se brief. Kolacek filed a pro se brief in response.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has explained that we need not 

address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. See 

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, we may 

determine that (1) “the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining 

that [the appellate court] has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[]” or 

that (2) “arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court 

so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.” Id. We have determined 

that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently examined the entire 

appellate record in this matter, as well as all briefs, and we agree that no arguable 

issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of 

new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 

511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). 

We note that in each judgment the section entitled “Terms of Plea 

Bargain[,]” incorrectly recites that there was a plea bargain but the record indicates 
3

that Kolacek entered a guilty plea but did not enter into a plea bargain with the 

State as to either count. We also note that in each judgment the section entitled 

“Plea to Enhancement Paragraph(s)[,]” incorrectly recites “N/A” when the record 

indicates that Kolacek entered a plea of “true” to the enhancement paragraphs. This 

Court has the authority to reform the trial court’s judgments to correct clerical 

errors. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1993). Therefore, in each judgment we delete the language in the 

“Terms of Plea Bargain[]” section and substitute “N/A” in its place, and we delete 

the “N/A” in the section entitled “Plea to Enhancement Paragraph(s)[]” and 

substitute “True” in its place. We affirm the trial court’s judgments as reformed.

1

AFFIRMED AS REFORMED.

_________________________

 LEANNE JOHNSON

 Justice

Submitted on November 30, 2015

Opinion Delivered December 9, 2015

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.

 1 Kolacek may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for 

discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.