In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-13-00475-CR
____________________
ELTON DAVIS III, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________ ______________
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 99119
________________________________________________________ _____________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this appeal, the appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel submitted a
brief in which counsel contends that no arguable grounds can be advanced in Elton
Davis III’s appeal from his conviction for possessing a controlled substance. See
Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115 (West 2010).1 Based on our review of
1
We cite to the current version of the statute as the subsequent amendment
does not affect the outcome of this appeal.
1
the record, we agree that no arguable issues exist to support Davis’s appeal. See
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
Davis was found guilty of possessing a controlled substance, sentenced to
five years in prison, and assessed a $500 fine. However, the trial court suspended
Davis’s sentence and placed him on community supervision for five years. Several
years later, the State filed a motion asking the trial court to revoke its decision
placing Davis on community supervision. During the hearing on the State’s
motion, Davis pled “true” to violating two of the terms of the trial court’s
community supervision order. The trial court granted the State’s motion to revoke
and sentenced Davis to five years in prison.
On appeal, Davis’s counsel filed a brief presenting counsel’s professional
evaluation of the record; in the brief, Davis’s counsel concludes that Davis’s
appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807
(Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time to allow Davis to file a
pro se brief. In response, Davis filed a pro se brief, alleging that he did not plead
“true” to any of the grounds alleged by the State in its motion to revoke. Davis’s
claim that he did not plead true to any of the grounds alleged in the State’s motion
to revoke is not supported by the record of the proceedings that occurred in the trial
court.
2
After reviewing the appellate record, the Anders brief filed by Davis’s
counsel, and Davis’s pro se response, we agree with counsel’s conclusion that any
appeal would be frivolous. Consequently, we need not order the appointment of
new counsel to re-brief Davis’s appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511
(Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
However, we note that the trial court’s judgment, signed on October 7, 2013,
cites the wrong statute for Davis’s conviction. To correct the trial court’s clerical
error, under the provision in the judgment indicating “Statute for Offense[,]” we
substitute “481.115 HS” for the reference the judgment provides of “481.123(d)
HS[.]” As this mistake was clerical, and because no arguable grounds for the
appeal of Davis’s conviction are apparent from the record, the trial court’s
judgment, as reformed, is affirmed. 2
AFFIRMED AS REFORMED.
_________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on July 11, 2014
Opinion Delivered October 1, 2014
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger, and Horton, JJ.
2
Davis may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3