M odified and Affirmed and Opinion Filed November 6, 2023

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05
- 2 2
- 0 1091
- CR DANIEL PAUL RAY , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 77 th District Court Limestone County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 15487
- A MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg , Pedersen, III, and Nowell

Opinion by Justice Nowell Daniel Paul Ray was indicted for one count of burglary of a habita tion and two counts of theft of metal less than $20,000. The jury found appellant guilty and assessed his punishment at 99 years confinement for burglary of a habitation and 20 years confinement for each count of theft of metal less than $20,000. 1

1 This appeal originally was filed in the Tenth Court of Appeals. The appeal was transferred to this Court pursuant to a docket

- equalization order issued by th e Supreme Court of Texas. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001. Because this is a transferred case, we apply precedent of the Tenth Court of Appeals to the extent it differs from our own. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 41.3.– 2

–

On appe al, appellant ’ s court

- appointed attorney filed a brief in which he concluded the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). He also filed an accompanying motion to withdraw as appointed counsel. Appellant was provided a complete record and advised of his r ights to file a
pro se response . Appellant filed a pro se response objecting t o counsel ’ s Anders brief and motion to withdraw, questioning rulings made by the trial court, and arguing his
sentence was unco nstitutionally excessive

. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives

an Anders brief and a pro se response, the reviewing court has two choices. Bledsoe
v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). After conducting an independent examination of the record, “[the appellate court] may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[.] Or , it may determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.” Id

. at 826

- 27 (internal citations omitted). The appellate court does not address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or in a pro se response when it has determined there are no arguable grounds for review. Id . at 827. We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, including the issue s raised in appellant ’ s pro se respon se. We conclude that no reversible error– 3

–

exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds for review, and, therefore, the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744 (reviewing court, and not counsel, determines

— after full examination of pr oceedings

— whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State , 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for appeal exist). Although not an arguable issue, the trial court ’ s judgment s incorrectly state appellant plead “ true ” to the enhancement/habitual allegations . The record shows appellant plead “ not true” to the enhancement/habitual allegations

. Appellate courts may modify a trial court ’ s judgment and affirm it as modified. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 4 3.2(b); Bigley v. State , 865 S.W.2d 26, 27

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). A court of appeals has the authority to correct and reform a judgment to make the record speak the truth when it has the information to do so. Castro v. State , No. 10

- 22

- 00279

- CR,
2023 W L 6885049, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Waco Oct. 19, 2023, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 43.2(b); Bigley , 865 S.W.2d
at 27

- 28. Accordingly, we modify the section s of the judgment s titled “ Plea to 1 st Enhancement Paragraph” and “Plea to 2 nd Enhanc e ment/Habitual Paragraph” to read

“ Not True .”– 4

–

We grant counsel ’ s motion to withdraw and affirm the tri al court ’ s judgments as modified

. /Erin A. Nowell/ / ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE 221091f.u05 Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b)– 5

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT DANIEL PAUL RAY, Appellant
No. 05

- 22

- 01091

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 77th District Court, Limestone County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 15487

- A. Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell. Justices Molberg and Pedersen, III participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment s of the trial court are MODIFIED as follows:
As to Count One : Under the heading “Plea to 1 st Enhancement Paragraph,” we DELETE the word “True” and ADD the words “Not True.” Under the heading “Plea to 2 nd Enhancement /Habitual Paragraph,” we DELETE the word “True” and ADD the words “No t True.”
As REFORMED , the judgment for Count One is AFFIRMED

. As to Count Two : Under the heading “Plea to 1 st Enhancement Paragraph,” we DELETE the word “True” and ADD the words “Not True.” Under the heading “Plea to 2 nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragrap h,” we DELETE the word “True” and ADD the words “Not True.”
As REFORMED , the judgment for Count Two is AFFIRMED

.– 6

–

As to Count Three : Under the heading “Plea to 1 st Enhancement Paragraph,” we DELETE the word “True” and ADD the words “Not True.” Under the heading “Plea to 2 nd Enhancement/Habitual Paragraph,” we DELETE the word “True” and ADD the words “Not True.”
As REFORMED , the judgment for Count Three is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered this 6 th day of November , 202 3

.