In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-06-146 CR
____________________
JOHN KIM GOBERT, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 75506
Appellant John Kim Gobert was indicted as a repeat felony offender for attempted indecency with a child. Gobert pled guilty pursuant to a plea bargain. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Gobert guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Gobert on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a fine of $1,000. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Gobert's unadjudicated community supervision. Gobert pled "true" to one of the alleged violations of the terms of his community supervision. The trial court found that Gobert violated one of the conditions of his community supervision, found Gobert guilty of attempted indecency with a child, and assessed punishment at ten years of confinement. Gobert then filed this appeal.
Gobert's appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Gobert filed a pro se brief in response. The Court of Criminal Appeals directs that we not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine either: (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 determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently examined the clerk's record and the reporter's record, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We note that the judgment incorrectly recites that Gobert was convicted under section 22.11 rather than section 22.011 of the Texas Penal Code. This Court has the authority to reform the trial court's judgment to correct a clerical error. See Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b). We therefore reform the judgment to read that Gobert was convicted under sections 15.01 and 22.011 of the Texas Penal Code. We affirm the trial court's judgment as reformed. (1)
AFFIRMED AS REFORMED.
_______________________________
STEVE McKEITHEN
Chief Justice
Submitted on June 14, 2007
Opinion Delivered July 11, 2007
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
1. Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.