Affirmed as Reformed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 9, 2015

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00474-CR

ANDRE NIGEL BENNETT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1357744

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted appellant Andre Nigel Bennett of third degree felony theft 

in an amount greater than $1,500 but less than $20,000. On April 24, 2014, the 

trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for fifteen years in the Institutional 

Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a notice of 

appeal.
2

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal 

is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirement of Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by advancing frivolous 

contentions which arguably might support the appeal. See Currie v. State, 516 

S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised 

of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford 

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). See also Kelly v. 

State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). As of this date, appellant has not 

requested access to the appellate record.

The judgment reflects that appellant was convicted of theft in an amount 

greater than $20,000 but less than $100,000. However the record reflects the jury 

convicted appellant of the lesser-included offense of theft in an amount greater 

than $1,500 but less than $20,000. Accordingly, we reform the trial court’s 

judgment to reflect appellant was convicted of theft in an amount greater than 

$1,500 but less than $20,000. See French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1992) (stating appellate court has authority to reform a judgment to 

“speak the truth”). In an appeal in which counsel has filed an Anders brief, we are 

not required to abate the appeal for appointment of new counsel if the judgment 

may be reformed. See Ferguson v. State, 435 S.W.3d 291, 295 (Tex.App.—Waco 

2014, no pet.) (reforming judgment in Anders appeal to correct age of child 

victim); Bray v. State, 179 S.W.3d 725, 730 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) 

(reforming judgment in Anders appeal to delete improper condition of parole); see 

also Getts v. State, 155 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (affirming court 

of appeals’ judgment reforming the judgment of conviction in Anders appeal).
3

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree the 

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in 

the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief 

or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for 

review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court as reformed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jamison, Busby and Brown.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).