TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-13-00720-CR
Anthony Ervin, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 299TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-1-DC-11-500438, HONORABLE KAREN SAGE, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted appellant Anthony Ervin of burglary of a building other than a
habitation. Punishment was assessed at five years and six months in the institutional division of the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
Ervin’s court-appointed appellate attorney has filed a motion to withdraw
supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the
requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record
demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds on the merits to be advanced. See 386 U.S. 738,
744 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75 (1988). Appellant’s counsel’s brief points out clerical errors in the trial court’s
judgment that should be corrected, and the State in its reply brief concurs that the changes should
be made. Ervin was served a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his right to examine the
appellate record and to file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766.
No pro se brief or other written response has been filed.
We have reviewed the record, including the appellate briefs, and find no reversible
error aside from the clerical errors. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766;
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the
record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous other than
for correction of the following clerical errors:
(1) Where the judgment states that appellant was convicted of a third degree felony,
it will now state that he was guilty of burglary of a building, a state jail felony. See
Tex. Penal Code § 30.02(c)(1).
(2) Where the judgment contains “NA” in the spaces asking about pleas to
enhancement paragraphs, the judgment is revised to conform with information in the
reporter’s record showing that appellant pled true to two enhancement paragraphs.
(3) Where the judgment contains “NA” in the spaces concerning findings on the
enhancement paragraphs, the judgment is corrected to reflect the jury’s findings—in
conformity with appellant’s pleas of true and the trial court’s instruction—that the
enhancement allegations were true.
Appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction
is modified as described above and, as modified, is affirmed. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b).
Jeff Rose, Justice
Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin
Modified and, as Modified, Affirmed
Filed: July 31, 2014
Do Not Publish
2