AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED 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 TEXAS, 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 agreement, he pleaded no contest, and the trial 

judge signed an Order of Deferred Adjudication imposing an eight-year period of 

deferred-adjudication community supervision. 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 motion. At the end of 

the hearing, the trial judge granted the State’s motion, found appellant 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 permission to pursue an out-of-time appeal. Ex parte 

Anderson, No. WR-93,543-01, 2022 WL 2965519 (Tex. Crim. App. July 27, 2022) 

(per curiam) (not designated for publication). Counsel was appointed 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 copy of the record and explained to him that 

he had the right to review the record and file a pro se brief. We sent 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 requests, 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, although he did file a fourth request for an 

extension of time. We are denying that motion by separate order. 

Under these circumstances, we must conduct our own review of the record 

and independently determine whether any arguable grounds for appeal exist. See id.

at 744. If we conclude that counsel has exercised professional diligence in reviewing 
 –3– 

the record for error and agree that the appeal 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 conclude 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 Code of Criminal Procedure Article 42.12, 

§ 3g. But Article 42.12 was 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 the judgment to correct the erroneous 

statutory citation. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b). 
 –4– 

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, 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 citation “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