AFFIRMED AS MODIFI ED and Opinion Filed August 10, 2023 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-00755-CR ANDREW ANDERSON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TE XAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F1952721
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Pedersen , III, Garcia, and Kennedy Opinion by Justice Garcia Appellant Andrew Anderson was indicted for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Pursuant to a plea agreemen t, he pleaded no contest, and the trial judge signed an Order of Deferred Adj udication imposing an eight-year period of deferred-adjudication community supervisio n. Less than a month later, the State moved to revoke appellant’s probation or proceed with an adjudication of guilt. At the hearing of the State’s motion, appellant pleaded true to the mo tion. At the end of the hearing, the trial judge granted the St ate’s motion, found a ppellant guilty, and sentenced him to five years in prison. Appellant attempted to appeal, but we–2– dismissed his appeal as untimely. Anderson v. State , No. 05-19-01492-CR, 2020 WL 1303265 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 17, 2020) (mem. op., not designated for publication), aff’d , 625 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 2021). The court of criminal appeals later granted him permissi on to pursue an out-of-time appeal. Ex parte Anderson , No. WR-93,543-01, 2022 WL 2965519 (Tex. Crim. A pp. July 27, 2022) (per curiam) (not designated for publicati on). Counsel was appoi nted for appellant, and this appeal was timely perfected. Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw as appellant’s counsel on appeal in which she states that there are no arguable issues upon which to base an appeal. She has also filed a brief in support of the motion pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In the motion to withdraw, counsel stated that she sent appellant a c opy of the record and explained to him that he had the right to review the record and file a pro se brief. We se nt appellant a letter informing him of his rights and advising him that the deadline for his response, if any, was December 30, 2022. Pursuant to appellant’s request s, we extended his response deadline three times: to February 28, 2023; to May 22, 2023; and to July 24, 2023. He has not filed a response, althoug h he did file a fourth request for an extension of time. We are denying that motion by separate order. Under these circumstances, we must c onduct our own review of the record and independently determin e whether any arguable grou nds for appeal exist. See id. at 744. If we conclude that counsel has ex ercised professional diligence in reviewing–3– the record for error and agree that the app eal is frivolous, we should grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) Counsel’s brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. We conclu de it meets the requirements of Anders

. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (discussing minimum requirements for Anders briefs). Having reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, we conclude that nothing in the record might arguably support the appeal and that the appeal is frivolous. However, counsel’s brief identifies one clerical error in the judgment. The judgment contains a special finding that appellant used or exhibited a deadly weapon, followed by a citation to Texas C ode of Criminal Procedure Article 42.12, § 3g. But Article 42.12 wa s repealed in 2015. See Act of May 26, 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., ch. 770, § 3.01, 2015 Tex. Gen. Laws 2321, 2395 (H.B. 2299). The correct statutory reference is Article 42A.054(c). The State has filed a letter brief agreeing with appellant’s attorney’s position. We have the power to correct certain judgment errors that do not present arguable issues. Davilacontreras v. State , No. 05-21-00995-CR, 2022 WL 4396145, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 23, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Accordingly, we modify th e judgment to correct the erroneous statutory citation. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.2(b).–4– We grant counsel’s motion to withdr aw, modify the Judgment Adjudicating Guilt as discussed above, and affirm the judgment as modified.

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) 220755F.U05 /Dennise Garcia/ DENNISE GARCIA JUSTICE–5– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT ANDREW ANDERSON, Appellant
No. 05-22-00755-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F1952721. Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia. Justices Pedersen, III and Kennedy participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s Judgment Adjudicating Guilt is MODIFIED as follows: • On page two, the statutory cita tion “TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42.12 §3g” is deleted and replaced with “TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42A.054(c).
As MODIFIED , the Judgment Adjudicating Guilt is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered August 10, 2023