## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 18

- 00028

- CR

TERRELL DEWAYNE DOPSON, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 4th District Court Rusk County, Texas Trial Court No. CR17

- 165

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION On October 18, 2017, the State m oved to revoke Terrell Dewayne Dopson’s community supervision, 1 alleging that Dopson had committed two violations of the conditions of his community supervision. Following a bench trial, the trial court revoked Dopson’s community supervision and sentenced Dopson to twenty

- four months’ confinement

. 2 Dopson appeals. Dopson’ s appellate attorney filed a brief setting out the procedural history of the case, summarizing the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court proceedings, and conclud ing that the appellate record presents no arguable grounds to be raised on appeal. In that brief, c ounsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no plausible appellate issues to be advanced , thus m eeting the requi rements of the law

. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 743

– 44 (1967); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 509

– 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High
v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal. Counsel forwarded copies of his brief and motion to withdraw to Dopson and informed him of his rights to review the appellat e record and to file a pro se response to counsel ’ s brief, should he so desire. Additionally, counsel provided Dopson with a complete copy of the appellate

1 In the prelude to his community supervis ion, Dopson had pled guilty to p ossession of a p enalty

- g roup - o ne c ontrolled s ubstance of less than one gram, under a plea agreement. See T EX
. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN
. § 481.115(b) (West 2017). In accordance with the sentencing recommendations included in the plea agreement, the trial court had sentenced Dopson on September 25, 2017, to two years ’ confinement , had suspended that sentence, and had place d Dopson on five years ’ commun ity supervision.

2 In our cause number 06

- 18

- 00027

- CR, Dopson appeals the revocation of his community supervision following his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon.3

record in this matter

. On June 8, 2018, this Court advised Dopson that his pro se response was due on or before July 9, 2018. When Dopson did not file a pro se response, we further advised him on July 13, 2018, that the case was set for submission on August 3, 2018. W e have received neither a pro se response from Dopson nor a motion requesting an ext ension of time in which to file such a response. In our review of this matter, we have identified a needed modification to the judgment. In Anders cases, appellate courts “have the authority to reform judgments and affirm as modified in
cases where there is nonreversible error.” Ferguson v. State , 435 S.W.3d 291, 294 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2014, pet. struck) (comprehensively discussing appellate cases that have modified judgments in Anders cases). The judgment revoking Dopson’s community supervision
erroneousl y indicates that Dopson pled “not true” to the revocation allegations. We, therefore, modify the judgment to indicate that Dopson pled “true” to the revocation allegations. We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record and, like counsel, h ave determined that no reversible error exists. Accordingly, we modify the judgment as indicated.4

As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed

. 3

Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: August 3, 2018 Date Decided: August 8 , 2018 Do Not Publish

3 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders , grant counsel ’ s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearin g was overruled by this Court , s ee T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68.2 , (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals , s ee T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68.3 , and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure , s ee T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68.4.