Rares Mihai Halmagean v. State ( 2019 )

AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed October 25, 2019
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-00089-CR
RARES MIHAI HALMAGEAN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 199-83388-2017
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Whitehill, and Justice Schenck
Opinion by Chief Justice Burns
In 2018, Rares Mihai Halmagean entered open guilty pleas to ten counts of possession of
child pornography. The trial court found appellant guilty of counts I through V orally assessed
punishment at seven and a half years confinement. In counts VI through X, the trial court placed
appellant on deferred adjudication for ten years, to be served consecutively.
On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is frivolous
and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California. 386 U.S. 738 (1967);
see Murphy v. State, 111 S.W.3d 846, 849 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.). The brief presents
a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to
advance. See High v. State, 572 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. After we advised appellant of his right
to file a pro se response, he filed a motion to extend time to file his pro se response. We granted
appellant’s motion for extension of time, ordering the response be filed by June 24, 2019. We
advised appellant that failure to file a pro se response by that date would result in the case being
submitted on the Anders brief alone. Appellant did not file a response.
We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree that the
appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support
the appeal. However, we do note that while the judgment assesses punishment at seven years and
six months the trial court orally pronounced the sentence at seven and a half years. When there is
a variation between oral pronouncement and written memorialization, the oral pronouncement
controls. Coffey v. State, 979 S.W.2d 326, 328. (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Additionally, this Court
has the independent authority to reform the judgment, and appellate courts frequently reform
judgments to correct improper recitations relating to punishment. Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d
526, 529-30 (Tex. App.—Dallas, 1991, pet. ref’d). Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial
court.
/Robert D.Burns, III/
ROBERT D. BURNS, III
CHIEF JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
190089F.U05
–2–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
RARES MIHAI HALMAGEAN, Appellant On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District
Court, Collin County, Texas
No. 05-19-00089-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. 199-83388-2017.
Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Whitehill and Schenck
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered October 25, 2019.
–3–