Court Opinion

ID: 9889675
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-11 06:09:16.105542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:02.227307
License: Public Domain

AFFIRMED as MODIFIED and Opinion Filed October 5, 2023

                                    S  In The
                             Court of Appeals
                      Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                No. 05-22-00349-CR

                       ADRIAN MALDONADO, Appellant
                                   V.
                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court
                             Dallas County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. F-2024476-V

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION
               Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Reichek, and Breedlove
                              Opinion by Justice Reichek
      Adrian Maldonado was indicted for felony murder. The indictment alleged

that while in the course of committing the felony of evading arrest or detention in a

motor vehicle, appellant committed certain acts clearly dangerous to human life and

struck a vehicle occupied by A.M., causing her death. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.

§ 19.02(b)(3). Appellant pleaded guilty before a jury. The jury found appellant

guilty, as instructed by the trial court, and assessed his punishment at forty years’

confinement.
      On appeal, appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which he

concluded the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. He also filed an

accompanying motion to withdraw as appointed counsel.

      When an appellate court receives an Anders brief asserting no arguable

grounds for appeal exist, we must determine that issue independently by conducting

our own review of the record. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967)

(emphasizing court, and not appointed counsel, determines whether case is

“frivolous” after full examination of proceedings); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503,

510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (quoting Anders). If we conclude, after conducting an

independent review, that “appellate counsel has exercised professional diligence in

assaying the record for error” and agree the appeal is frivolous, we should grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. Crowe v. State,

595 S.W.3d 317, 319 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, no pet.) (quoting Meza v. State, 206

S.W.3d 684, 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)); see In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409

(Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

      The brief before us meets the requirements of Anders.             It presents a

professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there were no arguable

grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel

Op.] 1978). Appellant was provided a complete record and advised of his rights to

file a pro se response. He did not file a response. In a letter brief, the State agrees

there are no arguable grounds for reversal.

                                         –2–
      We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178

S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in

Anders cases). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit, and we find

nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

      Although not an arguable issue, as pointed out in the State’s letter brief, the

trial court’s judgment does not accurately identify the statute for the offense. The

judgment states that the “Statute for Offense” is § 19.02(c) of the Texas Penal Code.

Section 19.02(c) provides that murder is a first-degree felony. TEX. PENAL CODE

ANN. § 19.02(c). The elements of felony murder are set out in § 19.02(b)(3). Id.

§ 19.02(b)(3); see McDade v. State, 613 S.W.3d 349, 358 & n.12 (Tex. App.—

Dallas 2020, no pet.). This Court has the power to modify a judgment to make the

record speak the truth when we have the necessary information before us to do so.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 28 (Tex. Crim. App.

1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet.

ref’d). Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect that the “Statute

for Offense” is § 19.02(b)(3) of the penal code.

                                         –3–
      We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment

as modified.

                                         /Amanda L. Reichek/
                                         AMANDA L. REICHEK
                                         JUSTICE

Do Not Publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
220349F.U05

                                      –4–
                                  S
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

ADRIAN MALDONADO, Appellant                  On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial
                                             District Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-22-00349-CR          V.               Trial Court Cause No. F-2024476-V.
                                             Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 Reichek. Justices Partida-Kipness
                                             and Breedlove participating.

   Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
MODIFIED as follows:

      “Statute for Offense” is modified to state “19.02(b)(3) Penal Code.”

As MODIFIED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 5th day of October, 2023.

                                       –5–