Donte Lamont Rose v. State ( 2015 )

Affirmed as Modified and Opinion Filed July 2, 2015
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-00905-CR
No. 05-14-00906-CR
DONTE LAMONT ROSE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F-1325715-U and F13-25716-U
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Brown, and Justice Stoddart
Opinion by Chief Justice Wright
Donte Lamont Rose appeals his two convictions for aggravated robbery with a deadly
weapon. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03 (West 2011). Rose entered an open plea of guilty to
the court, and the court assessed his punishment at twenty years’ imprisonment. On appeal,
Rose’s attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeals are wholly frivolous and without
merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief
presents an evaluation of the record showing why there are no arguable grounds to advance. See
High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a
copy of the brief and the record to Rose as required. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319
(Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
Rose filed a pro se response raising the single issue of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Our duty in reviewing an Anders brief is to determine whether there are any arguable grounds for
appeal and, if so, remand the case to the trial court so new counsel may be appointed to address
those issues. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). After reviewing
counsel’s brief, appellant’s pro se response, and the record, we agree the appeals are frivolous
and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals.
However, counsel does ask this Court to reform the judgments. This Court has the power
to modify an incorrect judgment and make the record speak the truth when we have the
necessary data and information to do so. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); see Estrada v. State, 334
S.W.3d 57, 63 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.). The trial court’s judgments both show the
attorney for the State was Jeff Matovich, but the record is clear that Robin Pittman was the actual
attorney for the State. Accordingly, we reform the trial court’s judgments to remove Jeff
Matovich as attorney for the State and in its place reflect Robin Pittman.
DO NOT PUBLISH /Carolyn Wright/
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). CAROLYN WRIGHT
140905F.U05 CHIEF JUSTICE
–2–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
DONTE LAMONT ROSE, Appellant On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-14-00905-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F-1325715-U.
Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Brown and Stoddart participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED
as follows:
the name Jeff Matovich will be removed as Attorney for State, and Robin Pittman
will be inserted in its place.
As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered July 2, 2015.
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
DONTE LAMONT ROSE, Appellant On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-14-00906-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F-1325716-U.
Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Brown and Stoddart participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED
as follows:
the name Jeff Matovich will be removed as Attorney for State, and Robin Pittman
will be inserted in its place.
As REFORMED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered July 2, 2015.
–4–