### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-10-00741- CR NO. 03-10-00799- CR

Sylvester K endre Brown, Ap pellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 264 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 667 04 & 662 65, TH E H ONO RAB LE MARTH A J. TRUDO , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant, Sy lvester Kendr e Br own, enter ed an open plea of g uilty in cause number
66704 to the first deg ree felony offe nse of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance,

coca ine, in an amount of four g rams or more but less than 200 g rams. See Tex. Hea lth & Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.102(3) (D), 481.112( a) ( West 2010). A t the same time, B rown e ntere d an open plea of g uilty in cause number 66265 to the second deg ree felony offe nse of possession a controlled substance, c ocaine , in an amount of four g rams or more but less than 200 g rams. See Tex. Health
& Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.102(3)( D), 481.115(a) (West 2010). After a hear ing on punishment, the trial court f

ound Br own g uilty

of both offe nses and assessed his punishment at c onfinement in the
I nstitut ional Division of the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice for 12 y ear s in eac h case , order ing the sentenc es to run conc urre ntly

.I n eac h case , Br own’s court-a ppointed attorney has filed a m o tion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appea l is frivolous and without merit. The briefs meet the require ments of Anders v. Ca l i f o r nia by prese nting a profe ssional evalua tion of the rec ord d em o nstrating why there are no arguable g rounds to be advanc ed. See Anders v. Cali f o r n i a , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner v. State , 300 S.W .3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also
Penson v. O hio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988). Br own’s counse l sent Br own copies of the brief s along with

a letter advising Br own of his rig ht to examine the appellate rec ords and file a pro se b ri ef. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Garner , 300 S.W .3d at 766. No pro se brief or other written response has been f iled in either c ase. W e have conducte d an independe nt revie w of both rec ords, including appella t e counsel’s briefs and the evidenc e prese nted at the punishment hear ing, and find no reve rsible err or. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744; Garner , 300 S.W .3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We ag ree with counsel that the rec ords prese nt no arg uably meritorious
g rounds for revie w and the appea ls are frivolous. Counsel’s motions to withdraw are g rante d. The judgme nts of conviction ar e af firmed. 1

Fr om a supplemental cler k’s rec ord filed in 03-10-741- CR, we note that the tri al co u rt 1 enter ed a nunc pro tunc judgme nt in cause number 66704 deleting the order for repa y ment of courtappointed attorney ’s fee s. Had the trial court not done so, we would have been compelled to modify the j udg ment befor e affirming Br own’s conviction and sentence in that c ase. See Nelson v. Stat e , No. 03-11-00022- CR, 2011 WL 5504935, at *2 (Tex. A pp.—Austin Nov. 9, 2011) (mem. op., not desig nated for publication) (modify ing judgme nt by deleting attorney ’s fee s from judgme nt befor e aff irming c onviction in frivolous appea l under Anders ); see also Maye r v. Stat e , 309 S.W .3d 552, 556 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (when evidence does not support order to pay attorney ’s fees, proper reme dy is to delete order ). The judgme nt in cause number 66265 contains n o o rd er fo r the repa y ment of court-a

ppointed attorney ’s fee s and thus require s no modification by this Court or entry of a nunc pro tunc judgme nt by the trial cour

t. 2__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice
Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Henson, a nd Goodwin Affir med Filed: Jul y

18, 2012 Do Not Publish

3