Webb, Terry Lane v. Texas, the State Of

AFFIRM as REFORMED and Opinion Filed July 24, 1997
In The
dourt at Appeals
W\ftlj Ststrtrt of Qkxas at lallas
No. 05-96-01382-CR
TERRY LANE WEBB, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F91-31876-VQ
OPINION PER CURIAM
Before Justices Maloney, Whittington, and Bridges
The trial court convicted Terry Lane Webb of indecency with a child and assessed
a twenty year sentence. Appellant's attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeal
is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record
showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
The grand jury indicted appellant for indecency with a child. Appellant pleaded
guilty without benefit of a plea bargain. During appellant's plea hearing, the trial court
admonished appellant in substantial compliance with article 26.13 of the code of criminal
procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13 (Vernon 1989 & Supp. 1997).
Appellant waived his right to confront and cross-examine witnesses and executed a judicial
confession. The trial court admitted appellant's judicial confession into evidence without
objection. Appellant then testified he was guilty of "each and every element" of the offense
charged. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to substantiate appellant's guilt,
deferred any finding of guilt, and placed appellant on probation for a period of five years.
In May 1996, the State filed a motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt,
alleging appellant violated his probation by, among other things, committing a new offense,
sexual assault.1 Appellant pleaded true to the allegations in the State's motion. The trial
court admitted appellant's signed plea of true into evidence and took judicial notice of the
court's file and the evidence previously heard in the sexual assault case. The trial court
found the allegations in the State's motion true, found appellant guilty of indecency with a
child, and assessed a twenty year sentence. The sentence was within the permissible range
of punishment.
Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant he had a
right to file a pro se brief. Appellant did not file a pro se brief.
'Thetrial court heard thenew sexual assault case (cause no. 05-96-01383-CR) and the motion toadjudicate inthe same hearing.
We address the appeal in cause number 05-96-01383-CR in a separate opinion.
We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We note that the judgment
erroneously recites that the trial court assessed a $500 fine when sentencing appellant. The
statement of facts does not reflect that the trial court assessed any fine as part of appellant's
sentence. Nor does the court's docket sheet reflect imposition of a fine. We have the
power to correct incorrect judgments when, as here, we have the necessary information to
do so. See Asberry v. Slate, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd);
Graham v. State, 693 S.W.2d 29, 30-31 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, no pet.); see
also Tamez v. State, 620 S.W.2d 586, 590 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981). Because the
judgment in this case incorrectly recites the court imposed a fine when adjudicating
appellant's guilt, we reform the trial court's judgment to delete the $500 fine. See Blanco
v. Slate, 761 S.W.2d 38, 42 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, no pet.); Norman v.
State, 642 S.W.2d 251, 253 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1982, no pet.).
We agree the appeal is otherwise frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in
the record that might arguably support the appeal. We affirm the trial court's judgment,
as reformed.
PER CURIAM
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 90
961382F.U05
gYj-ofc
Olourt of Appeals
W\i\k[ Btstrtrt of Qkxas at Bailas
No. 05-96-01382-CR
TERRY LANE WEBB, Appellant Appeal from the 204thjudicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No.
v F91-31876-VQ).
Opinion delivered per curiam, by Justices
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Maloney, Whittington, and Bridges.
JUDGMENT
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, we REFORM the trial court's judgment
as follows:
The judgment is reformed to delete the imposition of a$500 fine.
As reformed, we AFFIRM the trial court's judgment.
Judgment entered July 24, 1997.
FRANCES MALONEY
JUSTICE