Court Opinion

ID: 3077773
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 01:28:54.642414+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:50.716613
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals
                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                              _________________
                               NO. 09-12-00245-CR
                              _________________

            LEE WESLEY ALFRED A/K/A LEE COOPER, Appellant

                                        V.

                        THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

                     On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
                            Jefferson County, Texas
                           Trial Cause No. 12-13755
________________________________________________________________________

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Lee Wesley Alfred1 pled guilty to

the offense of felony theft. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find

Alfred guilty, but deferred finding him guilty. The trial court placed Alfred on

community supervision for three years and assessed a fine of $500. The State

subsequently filed a motion to revoke Alfred’s unadjudicated community

      1
          Lee Wesley Alfred is also known as Lee Cooper.
                                         1
supervision. Alfred pled “true” to three violations of the terms of his community

supervision. The trial court found that Alfred violated the terms of the community

supervision order, revoked Alfred’s community supervision, and imposed a

sentence of two years of confinement.

      Alfred’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 November 21, 2012, we granted an

extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from

the appellant.

      We have 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 the subsections of the statute for the

offense as “31.03(e)(4)(A) PC[.]” This Court has the authority to reform the trial

court’s judgment to correct a clerical error. See Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27

(Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Therefore, we delete “31.03(e)(4)(A) PC” from the

section of the judgment entitled “Statute for Offense” and substitute “31.03

                                         2
(e)(4)(F) PC” in its place. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03 (West Supp. 2012).

We affirm the trial court’s judgment as reformed.2

      AFFIRMED AS REFORMED.

                                                 ___________________________
                                                         CHARLES KREGER
                                                              Justice
Submitted on March 5, 2013
Opinion Delivered March 27, 2013
Do not publish

Before Gaultney, Kreger and Horton, JJ.

      2
         Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
                                          3