Thomas v. State

CHRISTOPHER CORTEZ THOMAS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Nos. 05-20-00941-CR, 05-20-00942-CR, 05-21-00176-CR

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas

November 9, 2021

Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4 Dallas County Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F19-75068-K, F19-75069-K, &amp F19-51345-K

Before Justices Myers, Partida-Kipness, and Carlyle

MEMORANDUM OPINION

LANA MYERS JUSTICE.

Appellant Christopher Cortez Thomas was charged with compelling prostitution by force, threat, or fraud (00941), trafficking (00942), and aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury (00176). He waived his right to a jury trial in the three cases, signed a judicial confession, pleaded guilty, and entered pleas of "not true" to the enhancement paragraph in each case. After hearing punishment-related evidence, the trial court found appellant guilty in each case, found the enhancement paragraph true, and it assessed punishment of thirty years in prison, with the three sentences to run concurrently.

Appellant's counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and the applicable law and concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit.

Counsel certifies that he provided appellant with a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw. 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, 812-13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining whether brief meets requirements of Anders); see also Arevalos v. State, 606 S.W.3d 912, 915-16 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2020 no pet.) (citing High and concluding Anders brief in support of motion to withdraw did not meet requirements of Anders and was deficient as to form). We advised appellant by letter of his right to file a pro se response, but he has not filed a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (appellant has right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel).

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court's duty in Anders cases). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit, and we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

Although not arguable issues, we note two clerical errors in the judgments.

First, the judgments incorrectly list the prosecutor in these cases as "Blake Lenfield," when the pleadings and reporter's record show the prosecutor was "Blake Penfield." Second, each judgment incorrectly lists "N/A" in the section pertaining to the enhancement paragraph in each indictment. But the records reflect that appellant pleaded "not true" to the enhancement paragraph in each case, and, prior to sentencing, the trial court found the enhancement allegations "true."

When the record provides the necessary information to correct inaccuracies in the trial court's judgment, we have the authority to reform the judgment to speak the truth. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(B); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529-30 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd); Shumate v State, No. 05-20-00197-CR, 2021 WL 4260768, at *3 (Tex. App.-Dallas Sept. 20, 2021, no pet. h.). Accordingly, in each judgment, under "Attorney for State," "Blake Lenfield" is changed to "Blake Penfield." In addition, in each judgment, under "1st ENHANCEMENT PARAGRAPH," "N/A" is changed to "NOT TRUE," and under "Finding on 1st ENHANCEMENT PARAGRAPH," "N/A" is changed to "TRUE."

We grant counsel's motion to withdraw and, as modified, affirm the judgments.

JUDGMENT

Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows:

Under "Attorney for State," "Blake Lenfield" is

...