Court Opinion

ID: 3079698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 01:45:11.790316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:16.995066
License: Public Domain

In The

                                 Court of Appeals
                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                                ________________
                                 NO. 09-12-00053-CR
                                ________________

                      RICKY LAMAR RANDOLPH, Appellant

                                           V.

                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________________

                 On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
                          Jefferson County, Texas
                         Trial Cause No. 11-12406
________________________________________________________________________

                             MEMORANDUM OPINION

      A jury found appellant Ricky Lamar Randolph guilty of felony theft, and the trial

court assessed punishment at sixteen years of imprisonment.

      Randolph’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional

evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807

(Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On July 12, 2012, we granted an extension of time for Randolph

to file a pro se brief. We received no response from Randolph.

                                           1
       We reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no

arguable issues support an appeal.        Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order

appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813

S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We note that the trial court’s judgment

incorrectly recites that Randolph’s offense is a second-degree felony. This Court has the

authority to modify the trial court’s judgment to correct a clerical error. Bigley v. State,

865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Therefore, we delete “2nd degree felony”

from the section of the judgment entitled “Degree of Offense” and substitute “state jail

felony, sequenced prior felony convictions” in its place. We affirm the trial court’s

judgment as modified.1

       AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

                                                 _________________________________
                                                         STEVE McKEITHEN
                                                             Chief Justice

Submitted on October 8, 2012
Opinion Delivered October 31, 2012
Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

       1
        Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
                                             2