Affirmed as Modified a nd Opinion Filed April 6, 2015 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-14-00061-CR No. 05-14-00062-CR No. 05-14-00063-CR TASHIMA NICOLE EVERHART, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F-0825802-S; F-0825716-S; and F-0825717-S 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Francis, Lang-Miers, and Whitehill Opinion by Justice Francis Tashima Nicole Everhart was convicted of fr audulent use or possession of less than five items of identifying information/habitual, assault on a public servant, and forgery of a financial instrument/check. In each case, she was gi ven a suspended sentence and placed on community supervision. She was subsequently convicted on a new charge of fraudulent use or possession of fifty or more items of identifying information, and the trial court revok ed her probation on all three previous offenses and sentenced her to two years in state jail on the forgery charge and five years in prison on the other two charges, with all sentences to run concurrently. Appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brie f meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluati on of the records showing why, in effect, there–2– are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–12 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a c opy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of her right to file a pro se response, but she did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v.
State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (ide ntifying duties of appellate courts and counsel in Anders cases). We have reviewed the reco rd and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explain ing appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals. Although not an arguable issue, we note th e judgment revoking community supervision in No. 05-14-00061-CR (fraudulent use or possessi on of less than five items of identifying information/habitual) does not reflect appellant ’s pleas or the trial court’s findings on two enhancement paragraphs alleged in the indictme nt. The pleas and findings are reflected on the original judgment placing appe llant on community supervision. Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgment revoking community supe rvision in No. 05-14-00061-CR to reflect that appellant pleaded true to both the first and se cond enhancement paragraphs and the trial court found true both the first and s econd enhancement paragraphs. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 43.2(b); Asberry v. State , 813 S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d).–3– We affirm the judgments in Nos. 05- 14-00062-CR and 05-14-00063-CR. As modified, we affirm the judgment in 05-14-00061-CR and or der the trial court to enter an amended judgment revoking community supervision reflecting the above modifications.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b) 140061F.U05 /Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE–4– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
TASHIMA NICOLE EVERHART, Appellant
No. 05-14-00061-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F-0825802-S. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis; Justices Lang-Miers and Whitehill participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this da te, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows: To reflect (1) a Plea of True to the 1s t and 2nd Enhancement Paragraphs and (2) a Finding of True to the 1st a nd Second Enhancement Paragraphs.
As MODIFIED , the judgment is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered April 6, 2015.–5– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
TASHIMA NICOLE EVERHART, Appellant
No. 05-14-00062-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F-0825716-S. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis; Justices Lang-Miers and Whitehill participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this da te, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered April 6, 2015.–6– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
TASHIMA NICOLE EVERHART, Appellant
No. 05-14-00063-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F-0825717-S. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis; Justices Lang-Miers and Whitehill participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this da te, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered April 6, 2015.