1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________ NO. 09
- 15
- 00002
- C R



### ____________________ WANDA KOLACEK , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_____________________________________ _____________________________ On Appeal from the 253rd District Court Lib er t y County, Texas Trial Cause No. C R 30214 (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 r estitution in the amount of $1 , 100.00 in Count I

. Kolacek timely f iled 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 app eal 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

- b rief 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 recite s that there was a plea bargain but the record indicates3 that Kolacek entered a guilty plea but did not enter into a plea bargain with the State as to either count. We also not e that in each judgment the section entitled “Plea to Enhancement Paragraph(s)[,]” incorrectly recite s “N/A” when the record indicates t hat Kolacek en tered a plea of “t rue” to the enhancement paragraphs

. T his Court has the authority to reform the trial court’s judgments to correct clerical

errors. See Te x. R. A pp. 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 th e section entitled “Plea to Enhancement Paragraph(s) [] ” and substitute “True” in its place. We affirm the trial co urt’s judgment s 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.