### NUMBER 13 - 12 - 00282 - CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IAN FERRIS JACKSON, Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 252nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez 1 Appellant, Ian Ferris Jackson , was convicted of robbery , a second

- degree felony , and assessed a 12

- year prison sentence

. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 29.02 (West

1 The Honorable Rose Vela, former Justice of this Court, did not participate in deciding the case because her term of office expired on December 31, 2012. “In accordance with the appellate rules, she was replaced on panel by Justice Nora L. Longoria”. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 41.1(a)

.2

2011)

. 2 Appellant ’s court

- appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief. We affirm the judgment as modified herein

. I. A NDERS B RIEF Pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant’ s court

appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. On its face, c ounsel’ s brief appear s to meet the requirements of
Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grou nds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“ In Texas, an Anders brief need not spe cifically advance 'arguable' points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities. ” ) (citing Hawkins v. State , 112 S.W.3d 340, 343

- 44 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Chri sti 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In compliance with High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. Ap p. [Panel Op.] 1978), appellant’ s counsel has stated that , under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court's judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he
has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal; (2)
served a copy of the brief and counsel’ s motion to withdraw on appellant; and (3) informed appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response. 3 See

2 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Ninth Court of Appeals in Beaumont pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See T EX

. G OV ' T C ODE A NN . § 73.001 (West 2005).

3 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “the pro se response need not comply with the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the3

Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. Appellant has not responded by filing a timely pro se brief.
II. I NDEPENDENT R EVIEW Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S . 75, 80 (1988).
We hav e reviewe d the entire record, counsel’ s brief, and the State’s brief and find no arguable grounds for appeal. Nonetheless, we note that the calculation of administrative fees assessed in the judgment includes a fine of $1,000.00 that was not orally pronou nced at the time of sentencing. The State has suggested that it would be appropriate to modify the judgment to deduct the $1,000.00 fine. When a conflict exists between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. See Coffey v. State , 979 S.W.2d 326, 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Accordingly, we modify the judgment to deduct the $1,000.00
fine. 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) (“ The authority of an appellate court to reform incorr ect judgments is not dependent upon the request of any party, nor does it turn on the question of whether a party has or has not objected in the trial court. The appellate court may act sua sponte and may have the duty t o do so. Appellate courts have frequently reformed judgments to correct improper recitations or omissions relating to punishment. ”) (internal citations omitted)

. T he judgment is affirmed as modified.

case p resents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (quoting Wilson v. State , 955 S.W.2d 693, 696

- 97 (Tex. App.

— Waco 1997, no pet.)).4 III. M OTION TO W ITHDRAW In accordance with Anders , appellant’ s attorney has asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State , 903 S.W.2d 776, 779

– 80 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“[I ]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate cour t that the appea l is frivolous.” ) (citations omitted)). We grant counse l’ s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’ s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’ s judgment to appellant and to advise him of his right t o file a pet ition for discretionary review. 4 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens , 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

___________________ ROGELIO VALDEZ Chief Justice
Do not Publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b) Delivered and filed the 17th day of January , 201 3

.

4 No substitute coun sel will be appointed. Should appellant wish 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 must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 68.2. Effe ctive September 1, 2011, any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate P rocedure 68.4. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 68.4.