Court Opinion

ID: 9555536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-14 10:07:02.607164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:36:27.472784
License: Public Domain

In the
        Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
         at Fort Worth
     ___________________________

          No. 02-22-00068-CR
     ___________________________

  JEREMY RASHAD RIDING, Appellant

                    V.

         THE STATE OF TEXAS

  On Appeal from the 297th District Court
         Tarrant County, Texas
       Trial Court No. 1652742D

  Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.
  Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker
                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      By indictment, the State charged Appellant Jeremy Rashad Riding with one

count of indecency with a child by contact. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11(a). A

repeat offender notice alleged that Riding had been finally convicted of the felony

offense of “domestic assault - 2nd degree” in another state. Pursuant to a plea

agreement, the State waived the enhancement, and Riding pleaded guilty to the

remaining allegations in the indictment in exchange for seven years’ deferred

adjudication community supervision and a $700 fine.           Months later, the State

petitioned to proceed to adjudication, alleging that Riding had committed multiple

violations of his community-supervision conditions. Riding pleaded “true” to some

of the State’s allegations and “not true” to the others. The trial court held a hearing,

found true seven of the ten paragraphs—including the three to which Riding had

pleaded “true”—adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to fifteen years’

confinement.

      On appeal, Riding’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in

which she argues that there are no arguable, non-frivolous issues to present on appeal.

Counsel’s motion and brief meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting

a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable

grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Additionally, in

compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel provided Riding with copies of her brief and

motion to withdraw, and she informed Riding of his right to file a pro se response, to

                                           2
review the record, and to seek discretionary review pro se should this court deny

relief. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Riding filed a pro se

response, but his response did not show any arguable grounds for appeal. The State

declined to file a brief and instead filed a letter in which it agreed with appointed

counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

      After an appellant’s court-appointed counsel fulfills the requirements of Anders

and files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous, this court is

obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record to see if there is any

arguable ground that may be raised on his behalf. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503,

511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

      After carefully reviewing the record, counsel’s brief, and Riding’s pro se

response, we agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly without merit; we have

found nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v.

State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). However, the trial court’s

judgment reflects that Riding pleaded, “True,” to the State’s petition to adjudicate.

Riding did not plead true to all the allegations in the State’s petition; he only pleaded

true to Paragraphs 3, 4, and 9.

      We have the authority to modify the trial court’s judgment and affirm it as

modified. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bray v. State, 179 S.W.3d 725, 730 (Tex. App.—

Fort Worth 2005, no pet.); see also Van Flowers v. State, 629 S.W.3d 707, 711 (Tex.

                                            3
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2021, no pet.) (listing corrections); Dabney v. State, No. 12-

22-00200-CR, 2022 WL 16842933, at *2 (Tex. App.—Tyler Nov. 9, 2022, no pet.)

(mem. op., not designated for publication) (modifying judgment to delete “true” and

enter correct pleas of true and not true); Aaron v. State, No. 13-20-00295-CR,

2021 WL 1134310, at *2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Mar. 25, 2021, no

pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (same). Accordingly, we modify the

trial court’s judgment to reflect that Riding pleaded “True to Paragraphs 3, 4, and 9,”

and “Not True to Paragraphs 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10.” We grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified.

                                                     /s/ Brian Walker

                                                     Brian Walker
                                                     Justice

Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: August 10, 2023

                                          4