James Chapman Jr. v. State ( 2015 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-14-00165-CR
____________________
JAMES CHAPMAN JR., Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________ ______________
On Appeal from the 356th District Court
Hardin County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 21294
________________________________________________________ _____________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found James Chapman Jr. guilty of the offense of unauthorized use of
a motor vehicle, a state jail felony. Chapman elected for the court to assess
punishment, and it assessed punishment at 180 days in prison. Chapman’s
appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the
record and concludes that the case presents no arguable grounds to be advanced on
appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d
1
807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time for Chapman to file
a pro se brief, but we received no response from Chapman.
We have independently examined the clerk’s and reporter’s records, and we
agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. 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).
Nevertheless, in our independent review of the record, we note that the
judgment is incorrectly styled as a “JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION BY COURT—
WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL,” and it indicates that Chapman pleaded “GUILTY[.]” The
reporter’s record and clerk’s record reflect that Chapman actually pleaded “[n]ot
guilty[,]” a jury found him guilty, and then Chapman elected to have the trial court
impose his punishment.
This Court has the authority to reform the trial court’s judgment to correct a
clerical error. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 531 (Tex. App.—Dallas
1991, pet. ref’d). We reform the trial court’s judgment to show that appellant
entered a plea of not guilty, appellant was tried by a jury that found him guilty, and
that the trial court assessed appellant’s punishment. See Abor v. State, 677 S.W.2d
560, 562 n.5 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1984, pet. ref’d) (reforming trial court’s
2
judgment to show appellant pleaded not guilty and was tried by a jury that found
her guilty where, due to clerical error, the original judgment recited a plea of guilty
and a waiver of trial by jury). Otherwise, we affirm the trial court’s judgment as
reformed. 1
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice
Submitted on December 15, 2014
Opinion Delivered January 21, 2015
Do Not Publish
Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
1
Chapman may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary
review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3