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 Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On October 18, 2017, the State moved to revoke Terrell Dewayne Dopson’s community 

supervision,1alleging 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 concluding 

that the appellate record presents no arguable grounds to be raised on appeal. In that brief, counsel 

has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no plausible 

appellate issues to be advanced, thus meeting the requirements 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 appellate 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 supervision, Dopson had pled guilty to possession of a penalty-group-one controlled 

substance of less than one gram, under a plea agreement. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 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 placed 

Dopson on five years’ community 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. We have received 

neither a pro se response from Dopson nor a motion requesting an extension 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 

erroneously 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, have 

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

 

3Since 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 rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must 

be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with 

the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.