Rose, Eric v. State

Affirmed as Modified and Opinion Filed December 1, 2014 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-01078-CR ERIC ROSE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F11-55385-Y MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Myers and Brown Opinion by Chief Justice Wright Eric Rose pleaded guilty before a jury to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and true to an enhancement paragraph alleging a prior felony conviction. The jury assessed punishment at seventy-five years’ imprisonment. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011). On appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. 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, 811–12 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying duties of appellate courts and counsel in Anders cases). 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. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Although not an arguable issue, we note the section of the trial court’s judgment that pertains to the enhancement paragraph incorrectly states “n/a.” We modify the trial court’s judgment to show that appellant pleaded true to the enhancement paragraph and that the paragraph was found true. See 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). As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 121078F.U05     /Carolyn Wright/   CAROLYN WRIGHT   CHIEF JUSTICE   ‐2‐    Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT ERIC ROSE, Appellant Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. No. 05-12-01078-CR V. F11-55385-Y). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright, THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Myers and Brown participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIED as follows: The section entitled “Plea to 1st Enhancement Paragraph” is modified to show “True.” The section entitled “Findings on 1st Enhancement Paragraph” is modified to show “True.” As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment. Judgment entered December 1, 2014.       ‐3‐