## In t he Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 23

- 00139

- CR

CALVIN MARCELLUS ANDERSON , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 124th District Court Gregg County, Texas Trial Court No. 52,879

- B

Before Stevens , C.J., van Cleef and Rambin , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION Calvin Marcellus Anderson pled guilty to murdering Lasheika Kenney, without the benefit of a plea bargain. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 19.0 2 (Supp.)

. Anderson assisted the State in its prosecution of his co

- defendant, Kendall Johnson , and returned to the trial court for sentencing. 1 The trial court sentenc ed Anderson to sixty years’ imprisonment for his role in Kenney’s murder. And erson ap p eals.
Anderson ’ s attorney filed a brief stat ing that he reviewed the record and found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal

. T he brief sets out the procedural history of the case and summarizes the evidence elici ted durin g the trial court proceeding s
. Since counsel provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced , that evaluation m eet s the requirements of Anders v. California

. Ander s v. Cali fornia , 386 U.S. 738, 743

– 44 (1967); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 509

– 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op. ] 1978).
Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seekin g to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.
On November 10, 2023 , counsel maile d to Anderson cop ies of the brief, the appellate record, and the motion to w ithdraw. Anderson was informed of his rig ht s to re view the record and file a pr o se respon se
. By letter dated November 13 , this Court informed Anderson that any pro se response was due on or before December 13

. On December 27 , this Court further
informed Anderson that the case would be set for submissio n on the briefs on January 17 , 2024

.

1 In cause number 06

- 23

- 00081

- CR, we addressed Johnson’s appeal from his c onviction of murder.3

W e received neither a pro se response from Anderson nor a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response. We have reviewed the entire appellate record and have independently determined that no
reversible error exists. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). However, non

- reversible error is found in the judgment , and “ a ppellate courts are authorized to reform judgments and affirm as modified in A nders cases involvin g non
- reversible error.”
Mit chell v. State , 653 S.W.3d 295, 297 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2022, no pet.) (comprehensively discussing appellate cases that have modified judgments in Anders cases). The trial court’s judgment checks a box in dicating th ere is a plea bargain and recites t hat the “Terms of Plea Bargain are attached and incorporated herein by this reference.” Because Anderson entered an open plea of guilt, the record shows there was no plea bargain in this case.
As a r esult, we modify the trial co urt’s judgment b y unchecking the “ Terms of Plea Bargain ” box. We also delete the phrase “Terms of Plea Bargain are attached and incorporated herein by
this reference ” and replace it with the phrase “Open Plea, No Plea Bargain .”4

As modified, we affirm t he trial court’ s judgment. 2

Charles van Cleef Justice
Date Submitted: January 17, 2024 Date Decided: February 6 , 20 24
Do Not Publish

2 Since we agree that this case prese n ts no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders , grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel wil l be appo inted. S hould appellant desire 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 peti tion for discretio nary review (1) must be filed w ithin thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, s ee T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the c lerk of the Texas Co urt of Cr iminal Appeals, see T EX

. R. A P P

. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4.