Edward Rodriguez v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
________________
NO. 09-21-00225-CR
________________
EDWARD RODRIGUEZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 435th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 18-11-15694-CR
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Edward Rodriguez was convicted by a jury of evading arrest or detention with
the use of a motor vehicle, and after the trial court found him guilty of committing
two prior felonies, the judge sentenced him to 40 years in the Institutional Division
of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 38.04(a),
38.04(b)(2). We affirm.
1
Rodriguez’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s
professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous; he then
filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738(1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Rodriguez was
notified of his right to file a pro se brief, and he did so on January 6, 2023. The Court
of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in
an Anders brief or pro se response. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine: (1) “that the appeal is
wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and
finds no reversible error[;]” or (2) “that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand
the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.”
Id.We have reviewed the appellate record and Appellant’s pro se response, 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. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We
note, however, that the trial court’s judgment contains a clerical error because it
incorrectly states that Rodriguez was charged and convicted of an offense under
section 38.04(b)(1) of the Texas Penal Code, whereas the jury’s verdict reflects that
he was convicted of a violation of section 38.04(b)(2). See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§
2
38.04(b)(1), 38.04(b)(2). This Court has the authority to modify 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, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s
judgment to reflect that Rodriguez was convicted of violating section 38.04(b)(2) of
the Penal Code. We affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified.1
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
________________________________
JAY WRIGHT
Justice
Submitted on February 28, 2023
Opinion Delivered March 22, 2023
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.
1 Rodriguez may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3