Claborne Joseph Gallien, Jr. A/K/A Claborne Gallien v. State ( 2007 )

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________

NO. 09-06-309 CR ____________________

CLABORNE JOSEPH GALLIEN, JR. a/k/a CLABORNE GALLIEN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 91186

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant, Claborne Joseph Gallien, Jr., a/k/a Claborne Gallien, pled guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Gallien guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Gallien on community supervision for seven years, and assessed a fine of $1000. On May 5, 2006, the State filed a motion to revoke Gallien's unadjudicated community supervision. Gallien pled "not true" to violating the conditions of the community supervision order. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that Gallien violated one of the conditions of his community supervision, found Gallien guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child, and assessed punishment at ninety-nine years of confinement.

Gallien's appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On January 11, 2007, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from appellant. We reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. In our review of the record, we noted that the judgment incorrectly recites that the trial court found count one of the motion to revoke to be true. The reporter's record of the hearing on the motion to revoke reflects that the trial court found count three to be true. This Court has the authority to reform the trial court's judgment to correct a clerical error. See 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); Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b). We therefore reform the judgment to delete the statement that the trial court found count one to be true and we add a statement that the trial court found count three to be true. 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). We affirm the trial court's judgment as reformed. ⁽¹⁾

AFFIRMED AS REFORMED.

_______________________________

STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice

Submitted on April 6, 2007

Opinion Delivered April 18, 2007

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.

1. Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.