Affirmed as modified; Opinion Filed June 21, 2019.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-18-01316-CR

BERNARD EUGENE BROOKINS, JR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 219-83124-2017

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Brown, and Nowell

Opinion by Justice Nowell

Appellant Bernard Eugene Brookins, Jr waived a jury trial and pleaded not guilty to 

aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. After the trial court found appellant guilty of the offense, 

appellant pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs. The trial court found the enhancement 

paragraphs true and sentenced appellant to twenty-five years’ imprisonment.

On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal is wholly 

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738 (1967). 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 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. 

App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining whether brief meets requirements of Anders). Counsel 

delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, 
–2–

but he did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2014) (noting appellant has right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel).

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 

826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree the 

appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support 

the appeal.

Although not an arguable issue, we note the trial court’s judgment incorrectly recites 

appellant entered a guilty plea to the charges in the indictment. The record shows appellant 

pleaded not guilty to the charges in the indictment and a trial on the merits ensued. Accordingly, 

on our own motion, we modify the portion of the judgment entitled “plea to offense” to show “not 

guilty.” TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) 

(courts of appeals have authority to modify a judgment); Estrada v. State, 334 S.W.3d 57, 63–64 

(Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.).

As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

/Erin A. Nowell/

ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

181316F.U05
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

BERNARD EUGENE BROOKINS, JR, 

Appellant

No. 05-18-01316-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 219-83124-2017.

Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell. 

Justices Bridges and Brown participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED

as follows:

The section entitled “Plea to Offense” is modified to show “Not Guilty.”

As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.

Judgment entered this 21st day of June, 2019.