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

No. 06

- 23

- 00138

- CR

SHAUNTA DANIELLE BELL , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 8th District Court Hopkins County, Texas Trial Court No. 2027979

Be fore Stevens , C.J., van Cleef and Rambin , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION
Shaunta Danielle Bell pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver four grams or more but less than 200 grams of methamphetamine, a first

- degre e felo ny
. See T EX
. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN
. § 481. 11 2 (d) (Supp.)

. After s he pled true to the State’s enhancement allegation , the trial court placed Bell on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of ten years pursuant to t he terms of a plea

- bargain agreement with the State

. The terms and conditions of
Bell ’s deferred adjudication community supervision required her to report to her c ommunity

s upervision o fficer (CSO) in person once a month, “ perform 180 .00 hours of c ommunit y servi ce

work at the rate of 16.00 hours per month, ” and successfully complete the “Morgans Mercy Mansion Treatment Program , ” among other things. Alleging that Bell failed to comply with
those terms and conditions, t he State mov ed to revoke h er community superv ision a nd to proceed to an adjudication of her guilt. Bell pled true to all of the State’s allegations in its motion t o adjudicate guilt and, after an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the State’s motion. The
tria l court sentenced Bell to twenty

- five year s’ imp risonment, and s he appeals.
Bell ’ s attorney filed a brief stat ing that he reviewed the record and found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal

. The brief sets out the proced ural history o f the

case and summarizes t he evi d ence elicited during the trial court proceeding s
. Since counsel provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advance d , that evaluat ion m eet s the requirements of Anders v. Califor nia

. Anders
v. Cal ifornia , 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.3

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 seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.
On September 6, 2023, counsel mailed to Bell cop ies of the brief , the motion to

w ithdraw , and a motio n for pr o se access to the appellat e reco rd lacking only Bel l’s signature

. Bell was informed of h er right s to review the record and file a pro se response

. On September 6 , this Court informed Bell that any motion for pro se access to the appellate record was due on or before September 22 , and on October 2, we not ified Bell that any pro se response was due on or
before November 1

. On November 15 , we f urther informed Bell that the case would be set for
submission on the briefs on Dece mber 6 . We rec eived neither a pro se response from Bell nor a motion requesting a n 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 Ble dsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824 , 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2 005). However, non reversi ble error is found in the trial court’s listing of the statute of offense.

“ [ A ] person commits an offense if the person knowingly . . . possesses with intent to
deliver a controlled sub sta nce listed in Penalty Group 1.” T EX
. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN
. § 481.112(a). Bell pled guilty to this offense, which was a first

- degree felony , because the

amount possessed by her was four gram s or more but less than 200 grams of methamp hetamine.
See T EX
. H EALTH & S AFETY C O DE A NN
. § 481.112(d ). Ho wever, instead of li sting the statute reflecting the offense of possession with intent to deliver, the trial court referenced Section
481.115 (d), which is the simple possession statute. Compar e T EX
. H EALTH & S A FETY C ODE A NN
. § 481 .112(d) with T EX
. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN
. § 481.115(d) (Supp.)

.4

“ [A] ppellate courts are authorized to reform judgments and affirm as modified in Anders cases involving non

- reversible error.” Mitchell v. State , 653 S.W.3d 295, 29 7 ( Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2022, no pet.) (com prehen sively discussing ap pellate cases that have mod ified judgments in Anders cases). Because the statute of offense recited in the trial court’s judgment is incorrect, we must modify the judgment to reflect the cor rect statute of offense.
We modify the trial court’s judgment by removing Section 481.115(d) as the statute of offense and replacing it with Section 481.112(d). As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1

Jeff Rambin Jus tice
Date Subm itt ed: December 6, 202 3 Date Decided: January 3, 2024
Do Not Publ i sh

1 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders , grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appel lant in this case. See Anders , 38 6 U.S. at 744. No subs titute counsel wi ll b e app o inted. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, s he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discre tionary review or file a pro se pet ition for discretionar y review. A ny petitio n fo r discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by t his Court, s ee T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 6 8.2 , (2) must be filed wi th the clerk of the Te xas C ourt of Criminal Appeals, see T EX
. R. A PP
. 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.