Chason Oden v. State ( 2015 )

MODIFY and AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed July 29, 2015.
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-00447-CR
No. 05-14-00448-CR
No. 05-14-00449-CR
No. 05-14-00450-CR
No. 05-14-00451-CR
CHASON MATTHEW ODEN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F10-73045-U, F10-63919-U, F10-63918-U, F10-63917-U,
F08-73489-U
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Francis, Lang-Miers, and Whitehill
Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers
Chason Matthew Oden appeals five convictions, following the adjudication of his guilt,
for four offenses of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (3,4–methylenedioxy
methamphetamine, methamphetamine, and cocaine) in an amount of four grams or more but less
than 200 grams and one aggravated promotion of prostitution offense. See TEX. HEALTH &
SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 481.112(a), (d), 481.113(a), (d) (West 2010 & Supp. 2014); TEX. PENAL
CODE ANN. § 43.04(a) (West Supp. 2014). The trial court assessed punishment at twenty years’
imprisonment for each drug conviction and ten years’ imprisonment for the aggravated
promotion of prostitution conviction. On appeal, appellant’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 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 appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably
support the appeals.
Although not an arguable issue, we find an error in the judgments adjudicating guilt in
cause nos. 05-14-00447-CR and 05-14-00448-CR. The judgments erroneously state the statute
for the offenses as “481.112 Health and Safety Code,” which pertains to drugs listed in penalty
group one. Appellant was convicted for possession with intent to deliver 3,4–methylenedioxy
methamphetamine, a drug listed in penalty group two. Accordingly, we modify the judgments to
show the statute for the offense is “481.113 Health and Safety Code.” 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).
-2-
In cause nos. 05-14-00447-CR and 05-14-00448-CR, we affirm the trial court’s
judgments adjudicating guilt as modified. In cause nos. 05-14-00449-CR, 05-14-00450-CR, and
05-14-00451-CR, we affirm the trial court’s judgments adjudicating guilt.
/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/
ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
140447F.U05
-3-
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHASON MATTHEW ODEN, Appellant Appeal from the 291st Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
No. 05-14-00447-CR V. F10-73045-U).
Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Francis and Whitehill 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 “481.113 Health and
Safety Code.”
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt.
Judgment entered July 29, 2015.
-4-
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHASON MATTHEW ODEN, Appellant Appeal from the 291st Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
No. 05-14-00448-CR V. F10-63919-U).
Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Francis and Whitehill 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 “481.113 Health and
Safety Code.”
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt.
Judgment entered July 29, 2015.
-5-
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHASON MATTHEW ODEN, Appellant Appeal from the 291st Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
No. 05-14-00449-CR V. F10-63918-U).
Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Francis and Whitehill participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered July 29, 2015.
-6-
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHASON MATTHEW ODEN, Appellant Appeal from the 291st Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
No. 05-14-00450-CR V. F10-63917-U).
Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Francis and Whitehill participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered July 29, 2015.
-7-
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CHASON MATTHEW ODEN, Appellant Appeal from the 291st Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
No. 05-14-00451-CR V. F08-73489-U).
Opinion delivered by Justice Lang-Miers,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Francis and Whitehill participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered July 29, 2015.
-8-