Clinton Eugene Whitfield v. State ( 2015 )

Affirmed as Modified and Opinion Filed May 26, 2015
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-00526-CR
CLINTON EUGENE WHITFIELD, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F11-55984-J
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Francis, Lang-Miers, and Whitehill
Opinion by Justice Francis
Clinton Eugene Whitfield appeals his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly
weapon. The trial court assessed punishment, enhanced by one prior felony conviction, at fifteen
years in prison. On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is
wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in
effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–12
(Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We
advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response. See
Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying duties of appellate
courts and counsel in Anders cases).
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. We find nothing in the record that might arguably
support the appeal.
Although not an arguable issue, we note two errors in the trial court’s judgment
adjudicating guilt. First, the judgment incorrectly states the statute for the offense is “22.22
Penal Code.” Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault under section 22.02 of the Texas
Penal Code. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2) (West 2011). Second, the judgment does
not reflect appellant’s plea of true to the enhancement paragraph or the trial court’s finding that
the paragraph is true. Accordingly, we modify the judgment adjudicating guilt to show the
statute for the offense is “22.02 Penal Code,” the plea to the enhancement paragraph is true, and
the finding on the enhancement paragraph is true. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State,
865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd).
As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt.
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
140526F.U05
/Molly Francis/
MOLLY FRANCIS
JUSTICE
‐2‐
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CLINTON EUGENE WHITFIELD, Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Appellant No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
F11-55984-J).
No. 05-14-00526-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Francis,
Justices Lang-Miers and Whitehill
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt is
MODIFIED as follows:
The section entitled “Statute for Offense” is modified to show “22.02 Penal Code.”
Add section “Plea to 1st Enhancement Paragraph: True.”
Add section “Findings on 1st Enhancement Paragraph: True.”
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt.
Judgment entered May 26, 2015.
‐3‐