Jeffery Glenn King v. State ( 2009 )

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-08-00404-CR ____________________

JEFFERY GLENN KING, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 97524

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Jeffery Glenn King pled guilty to unlawfully carrying a weapon on licensed premises. On May 21, 2007, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to find King guilty, but deferred further proceedings and placed King on community supervision for six years. On February 1, 2008, the State filed a motion to revoke King's unadjudicated community supervision. King pled "not true" to the alleged violations of the conditions of his community supervision. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that King violated two of the conditions of his community supervision, found King guilty of unlawfully carrying a weapon on licensed premises, and assessed punishment at seven years of confinement.

King'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 8, 2009, 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. Therefore, 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 note that in the section of the judgment entitled "Plea to Motion to Adjudicate[,]" the judgment incorrectly recites that King pled "TRUE[.]" This Court has the authority to reform the trial court's judgments to correct clerical errors. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). We delete this language and substitute "NOT TRUE" in its place. In addition, we note that in the section of the judgment entitled "Statute for Offense[,]" the judgment recites "46.02(a) (f) Penal Code[.]" The version of section 46.02 that was in effect when King committed the offense does not contain a subsection (f). See Act of June 1, 2007, 75th Leg., R.S., ch. 1261, § 24, 1997 Tex. Gen. Laws 4766, 4776-77 (amended 2007) (current version at Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 46.02 (a), (c) (Vernon Supp. 2008). We delete "(f)" from this language and insert "(c)" in its place. We affirm the trial court's judgment as reformed. ⁽¹⁾

AFFIRMED AS REFORMED.

_________________________________

CHARLES KREGER

Justice

Submitted on April 17, 2009

Opinion Delivered April 29, 2009

Do not publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger 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.