Tarsha Yvonne Wiley v. State ( 2015 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-14-00563-CR
Tarsha Yvonne Wiley, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 69201, THE HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Tarsha Yvonne Wiley was placed on deferred adjudication community
supervision after she pleaded guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. See Tex. Penal
Code § 22.02(a)(2); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.12, § 5(a). Subsequently, the trial court granted
the State’s motion to adjudicate after finding that appellant had violated the conditions of
supervision.1 The court adjudicated appellant guilty, revoked her community supervision, and
1
The State’s motion to adjudicate contained ten paragraphs alleging that appellant had
violated the conditions of supervision in various ways, including the commission of a new
family-violence-assault offense, the failure to abstain from the use of alcoholic beverages and illegal
drugs, the failure to complete a collections compliance class as directed, the failure to complete a
SASSI evaluation as directed, and the failure to pay certain fees associated with supervision. At the
adjudication hearing, appellant pleaded not true to the all of the allegations. The State presented
testimony from appellant’s community supervision officer and the victim of the alleged assault, after
which the trial court found all the allegations to be true.
assessed her punishment at five years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.12, § 5(b); Tex. Penal Code § 12.33.
Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a
brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of
Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there
are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967);
Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,
81–82 (1988).
Appellant’s counsel has certified to this Court that he sent copies of the motion and
brief to appellant, advised appellant of her right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se
response, and provided a motion to assist appellant in obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State,
436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. To date,
appellant has not filed a pro se response or requested an extension of time to file a response.
We have conducted an independent review of the record—including the record of the
adjudication proceeding and appellate counsel’s brief—and find no reversible error. See Anders,
386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for
review and the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
We note, however, that the judgment of adjudication in this case contains
non-reversible clerical errors. First, the judgment erroneously states that appellant’s “Plea to the
Motion to Adjudicate” was “True.” The record reflects that appellant pleaded “Not True” to the
2
allegations at the adjudication hearing. Second, the judgment omits the trial court’s findings of
violation, which were orally pronounced at the conclusion of the adjudication hearing. The record
from the adjudication hearing reflects that the trial court found all of the allegations contained in the
State’s motion to adjudicate—paragraphs A through J—to be true.
This Court has authority to modify incorrect judgments when the necessary
information is available to do so. See Tex. R. App. P. 46.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28
(Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Since the necessary information is available here, we modify the judgment
of adjudication to reflect that appellant’s “Plea to the Motion to Adjudicate” was “Not True” and to
reflect that the trial court found that appellant violated the terms and conditions of supervision as
alleged in paragraphs A through J of the State’s motion to adjudicate. As so modified, the trial
court’s judgment of adjudication is affirmed.
__________________________________________
Melissa Goodwin, Justice
Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Field
Modified and, as Modified, Affirmed
Filed: May 27, 2015
Do Not Publish
3