Affirmed as Modified; Opinion Filed May 27, 2015.

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 1 4 - 0 1481 - CR No. 05 - 14 - 01482 - CR BRANDON DEON WILLIAM S , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial D istri ct Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F 12 - 20826 - T, F14 - 57522 - T 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justice s Fillmore, Myers, and Evans Opinion by Justic e Evans Brandon Deon Williams was convicted , following the adjudication of his guilt , of th eft enhanced by two prior theft convictions
. See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 31.03(e)(4)(D) (West Supp. 2014). He was also convicted of a new credit card abuse offense
. See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 32.31(b)(1) (A) (West 2011). In each case, t he trial court ass essed punishment at one year’s confinement in a state jail. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (19 67). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State , 573- 2
- S.W.2d 807, 811

– 12 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appe llant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

– 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying duties of appellate courts and counsel in Anders cases). We have re viewed the record and counsel’s brief
. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 82 6

– 2 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases)
. We agree the appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that migh t arguably support the appeal s . Although not an arguable issue, we note the trial court’s judgment in cause no. 05

- 14

- 01482

- CR incorrectly identifies the statute for the offense as “32.21 Penal Code.” Appellant was convicted of credit card abuse under sec tion 32.31 of the Texas Penal Code. Accordingly, w e modify the judgment to show the statute for the offense is “32.31 Penal Code.” See T EX . R. A PP . P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State , 865 S.W.2d 26, 27

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State , 813 S.W.2d 526 , 529

– 30 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1991, pet. ref ’ d). In cause no. 05

- 14

- 01481

- CR, we affirm the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt. In cause no. 05

- 14

- 01482

- CR, we af firm the trial court’s judgment as modified.

/David Evans/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE Do Not Pu blish T EX . R. A PP . P. 47 141481F.U05- 3
- 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
JUDGMENT
BRANDON DEON WILLIAM S , Appellant No. 05

- 1 4

- 01481

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court of Dall as County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F12

- 20826

- T ). Opinion delivered by Justice Evans , Justices Fillmore and Myers participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt is AFFIRMED
. Judgment entered this 27th d ay of May , 2015.- 4
- 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
JUDGMENT
BRANDON DEON WILLIAM S , Appellant No. 05

- 1 4

- 01482

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (T r.Ct.No. F14

- 57522

- T ). Opinion delivered by Justice Evans , Justices Fillmore and Myers participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIED as follows: The section entitled “Statute for Offense” is modified t o show “32.31 Penal Code.” As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.
Judgment entered this May 27th, 2015.