Tyrone Eugene Glaspie v. State

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-19-00060-CR
__________________
TYRONE EUGENE GLASPIE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Polk County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 2018-0190
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Tyrone Eugene Glaspie appeals his conviction for driving while intoxicated,
a Class B misdemeanor. 1 Glaspie’s court-appointed appellate counsel submitted an
Anders brief in the appeal. In her brief, counsel contends no arguable grounds can
1
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04.
1
be advanced to support Glaspie’s appeal.2 Counsel’s brief presents a professional
evaluation of the record, and she explains in the brief why she has not been able to
raise an arguable issue to support Glaspie’s appeal. 3 Subsequently, we granted an
extension of time, allowing Glaspie time to file a pro se response. He did not file
one.
The record before us shows that in May 2018, the State charged Glaspie, by
information, with misdemeanor driving while intoxicated (Class B) based on an
offense he committed in April 2018. 4 Six months later, Glaspie pleaded not guilty
and the case went to trial. The jury that decided the case found Glaspie guilty.
Glaspie elected to have the trial court assess punishment, the court conducted a
punishment hearing and assessed a six-month sentence. Then, the court chose to
suspend the sentence and placed Glaspie on community supervision for a period of
2
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d
807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
3
See id.
4
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04.
2
twelve months.5 The court also ordered Glaspie to pay a fine, restitution, and court
costs. 6
After reviewing the appellate record and the Anders brief filed by counsel, we
agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues are available to support
Glaspie’s appeal. We further conclude Glaspie’s appeal is frivolous. Consequently,
we need not order the appointment of new counsel to re-brief Glaspie’s appeal.7
Nevertheless, the trial court’s judgment contains a clerical error because it
incorrectly reflects that Glaspie pleaded “GUILTY.” We may modify a trial court’s
judgment to make the record speak the truth if we have the necessary information
before us to do so.8 Our authority to correct a judgment is “not dependent upon the
request of any party, nor does it turn on the question of whether a party has or has
not objected in the trial court.”9 We may act sua sponte and may have the duty to do
5
See id. § 12.22.
6
See id.
7
Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (requiring
court appointment of other counsel only if it is determined that arguable grounds
exist to support the appeal).
8
Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1993).
9
Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529-30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet.
ref’d).
3
so.10 Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgment in Trial Court Cause
Number 2018-0190 to reflect that Glaspie pleaded “NOT GUILTY.” The trial
court’s judgment, as reformed, is affirmed.11
AFFIRMED AS REFORMED.
_________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on November 12, 2019
Opinion Delivered March 18, 2020
Do Not Publish
Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.
10
Id. at 530.
11
Glaspie may challenge our decision in the case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
4