Daniel Dunnam v. the State of Texas ( 2021 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-21-00033-CR
__________________
DANIEL DUNNAM, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 13-16943
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In 2013, a grand jury indicted Appellant Daniel Dunnam (a/k/a Danny
Dunnam, a/k/a Daniel Eugene Dunnam Jr., a/k/a Daniel Dunham) on one count of
felony driving while intoxicated. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 49.04, 49.09.
Dunnam pleaded guilty and waived his right to a jury trial. In 2014, the trial court
assessed punishment at ten years imprisonment, suspended the sentence, and placed
Dunnam on community supervision for ten years.
1
In 2018, the State filed a motion to revoke and alleged that Dunnam had
violated three terms of his community supervision, including failure to report, failure
to verify community service hours, and failure to pay fees. The State then moved to
dismiss the motion to revoke after Dunnam paid his arrearage in fees. In 2020, the
State filed another motion to revoke, alleging that Dunnam violated three terms of
his community supervision, that he should not possess drugs, should not violate State
laws, and he should pay certain fees. The motion alleged that he committed a
criminal offense, possession of a controlled substance, namely methamphetamine,
which violated two terms of his probation, and that he had failed to pay certain fees.
In 2021, the trial court held a hearing on the second motion to revoke, and
Dunnam pleaded “not true” to the allegations. The court found two of the allegations
true, revoked Dunnam’s community supervision, and sentenced Dunnam to four
years’ confinement.
Dunnam’s appointed counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional
evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is without merit and that there are
no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967);
High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of
time for Dunnam to file a pro se brief, and Dunnam did not file a pro se brief.
We have independently conducted a full examination of the record, and we
have determined that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
2
75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the appellate
record and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support
the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)
(“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered
the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found
none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 47.1.”). 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).
That said, we note that the section of the judgment entitled “Plea to Motion to
Revoke[]” recites “True to count(s) 1,2” whereas the reporter’s record of the hearing
on the motion to revoke reflects that Dunnam pleaded “not true” to all counts. This
Court has the authority to reform the trial court’s judgment 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 therefore reform the judgment to delete the reference to “True to count(s)
1,2” and to add “Not true to counts 1, 2, 3[.]”
3
We affirm the trial court’s judgment as reformed.1
AFFIRMED AS REFORMED.
_________________________
LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice
Submitted on October 15, 2021
Opinion Delivered October 27, 2021
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
1
Dunham may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
4