Court Opinion

ID: 6348622
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-10 07:12:08.609535+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:49:25.577619
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               __________________

                               NO. 09-21-00235-CR
                               __________________

                 ROBERT TRAYVON MCQUEEN, Appellant

                                         V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

                On Appeal from the 258th District Court
                         Polk County, Texas
                       Trial Cause No. 27,966
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      A jury found Robert Trayvon McQueen guilty of evading arrest or detention

with a motor vehicle and assessed punishment as a prior felony offender at nine years

of imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04(a), (b)(2)(A).

      McQueen’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.

                                         1
Crim. App. 1978). On February 2, 2022, we granted an extension of time for

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

      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. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d

503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). However, we note that the trial court’s judgment

contains a clerical error because it incorrectly states that McQueen pleaded

“GUILTY” to the offense, whereas the reporter’s record reflects that he pleaded

“[n]ot guilty.” This Court has the authority to modify the trial court’s judgment to

correct clerical errors. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26,

27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgment

to reflect that McQueen pleaded “NOT GUILTY” to the offense. We affirm the trial

court’s judgment as modified. 1

      AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

                                                    _________________________
                                                       W. SCOTT GOLEMON
                                                           Chief Justice

Submitted on May 12, 2022
Opinion Delivered June 8, 2022
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.

      1
        McQueen may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.1.
                                         2