1 In The 

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

____________________ NO . 09
- 1 3
- 00 206
- C R NO. 09
- 13
- 00207
- CR



### ____________________ NGUYEN PHAM A/K/A PHAM NGUYEN , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________ On A ppeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No s . 07
- 00802, 10
- 08358

________________________________________________________ _____________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In these two appeal s , 1 counsel for the appellant , Nguyen Pham a/k/a Pham Nguyen , filed brief s that stat e there are no arguable points of error allow ing Pham to obtain relief from his conviction s . A fter reviewing the record s in each of the appeals , we conclude that no arguable issues support Pham ’s appea l s . See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 , 744 (1967)

. 1 Because the appeals in these two cases share identical reporter’s records and briefs, and because the issue s are similar, we address both of Pham’s appeals in one opinion.2 In carrying out a plea bargain agreement in Cause Number 07

- 00802 , Pham pled guilty to aggravated assault

. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 2 2 .0 2 (West 201 1 ). 2
Under the terms of Pham ’s plea agreement , the trial court deferred the adjudication of Pham’s guilt, placed Pham on community supervision for five years, and assessed a fine of $500. Pham’s community supervision was subsequently revoked , and he was adjudicated guilty of aggravated assault

. F ollowing a motion for new trial , the trial court vacated its judgment and sentence

. E xtending the term of the community supervision order for five years, through November 30, 2018, the trial
court placed Pham on community supervision. In carrying out his plea agreement i n the other case that is the subject of this opinion, Cause Number 10

- 08358, Pham pled guilty to possessin g a controlled substance. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115 (West 2010). P ursuant
to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court deferred the adjudication of Pham’s guilt and placed Pham on community supervision for five years. While Pham was subject to the community supervision orders in Cause Numbers 07

- 00802 and 10

- 08358 , the State filed motions ask ing the trial court to revoke its community supervision order s . At the revocation hearing, Pham pled “true” to having burglarized a building on March 8, 2013, v iolat ing the term in

2 We cite to the current version of the stat ute as the subsequent amendment do es not affect the outcome of this appeal.3 each community supervision order that he was not to commit an offense against the State while on community supervision

. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial
court found Pham violated the respective community supervision order s and found Pham guilty of aggravated assault and possessin g a controlled substance . The trial
court sentenced Pham to eleven years in prison in the aggravated assault case and
to two years in state jail on the possession case

. On appeal, Pham ’s counsel filed brief s present ing counsel’s professional evaluation of the record s and containing counsel’s conclu sions that Pham ’s appeal s

are frivolous. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time to allow Pham to file pro se brief s , but he did not do so. Having re view ed the appellate record s and the Anders brief s filed by Pham ’s counsel , we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support Pham ’ s appeal s . Co nsequently, we need not or der the appointment of new counsel
to re

- brief Pham ’s appeal s . Cf. Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Although no arguable issues require the appointment of new counsel , we note that the trial court’s judgment in Cause N umber 07

- 00802 , the aggravated assault conviction, contains a clerical error

. P age two of the judgment in Cause4 Number 07

- 00802 appears to order the payment of a fine , even though the transcript of Pham’s sentencing hearing does not reflect that the trial court o rally
pronounce d a fine when it sentenced Pham to serve eleven years in prison

. The State agrees that the judgment, as worded, includes a fine. This Court has the authority to modify the trial court’s judgment to correct a clerical error. Bigley v.
State , 865 S.W.2d 26, 27

- 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Consequently , the language in the written judgment in Cause Number 07

- 00802 that stat es the defendant is required to pay “all fines [] ” and that stat es the defendant is required to pay “any remaining unpaid fines[]” is amended ; we order it deleted from the judgment . We amend the language on the second page of the written judgment that order s the defendant to pay “all fines [] ” to read: “The Court ORDERS Defendant to pay a ll court costs and restitution as indicated above.” We also amend the language on the second page of the written judgment that order s the defendant to pay “any remaining unpaid fines[]” to read: “Once there, the Court ORDERS Defendant to pay, or make arran gements to pay, any remaining court costs and restitution as ordered by the Court above.” Despite the presence of clerical errors in the trial court’s judgment in C a use Number 07

- 00802 , the clerical errors that we have corrected do not raise arguable
issu es about either Pham’s guilt or his eleven

- year sentence. Because no arguable5 i ssues with respect to Pham’s guilt or Pham ’ s prison sentence in Cause Number
07

- 00802 support an appeal , we affirm the trial court’s judgment, as modified. Additionally, because no arguable issues support Pham’s appeal in Cause Number
10

- 08358 , the trial court’s judgment in that case is affirmed

. 3
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED ; AFFIRMED

.

_________________________ HOLLIS HORT ON Justice Submitted on September 16, 2013 Opinion Delivered December 18, 2013 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

3 Pham may challenge our decision in th ese case s by filing petition s for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.