NO. 12-17-00063-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

STEVEN EDWARD RADZIKOWSKI,

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 87TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Steven Edward Radzikowski appeals his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly 

weapon. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 

87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1969). We modify and affirm as modified. 

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and 

pleaded “not guilty.” Appellant was found “guilty” by a jury of aggravated assault with a deadly 

weapon as charged in the indictment. Appellant pleaded “true” to one felony enhancement 

allegation, and the jury assessed his punishment at imprisonment for seventeen years and a $10,000 

fine. This appeal followed. 

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA.

Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v. 

State. Appellant’s counsel states that he diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the 

opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal 

can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In 
2

compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel 

Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the 

case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.1

We have considered counsel’s brief and conducted our own independent review of the 

record. Id. at 811. We have found no reversible error.

JUDGMENT MODIFICATION

In reviewing the record, we found an error in the written judgment. We have the authority 

to correct a trial court’s judgment to make the record speak the truth when we have the necessary 

data and information. Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d). 

In this case, the judgment states, “Fine: $N/A.” However, the record indicates that the jury 

assessed a $10,000 fine and the trial court included the $10,000 fine in its oral pronouncement of 

sentence. Having the necessary data and information to correct the trial court’s judgment to make 

the record speak the truth, we conclude that the judgment should be modified to reflect that 

Appellant’s sentence includes a $10,000 fine. See Asberry, 813 S.W.2d at 529. 

CONCLUSION

As required by Anders and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), 

Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 

407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the 

merits. Having done so, we agree with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. 

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw. We modify the trial court’s 

judgment to include a $10,000 fine and affirm the judgment as modified.

Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy 

of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for 

discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should 

Appellant wish to seek review of these cases by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must 

 

1

In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified 

Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, and took 

concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief has expired and no pro se brief 

has been filed.
3

either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a 

pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within 

thirty days from the date of this court’s judgment or the date the last timely motion for rehearing 

was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review 

must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition 

for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered September 19, 2018.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 19, 2018

NO. 12-17-00063-CR

STEVEN EDWARD RADZIKOWSKI,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 87th District Court 

of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 87CR-16-32859)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the appellate record and the briefs 

filed herein, and the same being inspected, it is the opinion of the Court that the judgment of the 

trial court below should be modified and, as modified, affirmed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment 

of the court below be modified to reflect that Appellant’s sentence includes a $10,000 fine; and 

as modified, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed; and that this decision be certified to the trial 

court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.