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 BROOK INS, 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, J r 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 s entenced appellant to twenty

- five years’ imprisonment. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which s he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). T he 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, 81 2 (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 fil e 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,
82 6

– 2 7 (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. Alt hough not an arguable issue, we note the trial court’s judgment incorrectly recites appellant entered a guilty plea to the charges i n 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. ” T EX
. R. A PP
. 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/ ER IN A . NOW E LL JUSTICE Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. 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 21 st day of June, 2019.