MODIFY and AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed November 24, 2014.
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-13-00635-CR
No. 05-13-01385-CR
No. 05-13-01386-CR
DAARON TAYVON BUYCKS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F12-35389-N, F12-33600-N, F12-34766-N
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices O’Neill, Fillmore, and Brown
Opinion by Justice O’Neill
Daaron Tayvon Buycks appeals his convictions for theft of property valued at $1,500 or
more but less than $20,000, credit card abuse, and possession with intent to deliver codeine in an
amount of twenty-eight grams or more but less than 200 grams within a drug-free zone. See
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 31.03(a), (e)(4)(A), 32.31(b) (West 2011 & Supp. 2014); TEX.
HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 481.114(a), (c), 481.134(b)(1) (West 2010 & Supp. 2014). On
appeal, appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which she concludes the appeals are 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 appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably
support the appeals.
Although not an arguable issue, we note that the judgment in the drug case shows the
offense as “possession of a controlled substance.” Appellant was indicted for, pleaded guilty to,
and was found guilty of possession with intent to deliver the codeine in a drug-free zone. Thus,
the judgment is incorrect. We modify the trial court’s judgment in cause no. 05-13-01386-CR
(trial court no. F12-34766-N) to show the “offense for which defendant was convicted” is
possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, codeine, in drug-free zone. 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).
-2-
We affirm the trial court’s judgments in cause nos. 05-13-00635-CR and 05-13-01385-
CR. We affirm, as modified, the trial court’s judgment in cause no. 05-13-01386-CR.
/Michael J. O’Neill/
MICHAEL J. O’NEILL
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
130635F.U05
-3-
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
DAARON TAYVON BUYCKS, Appeal from the 195th Judicial District
Appellant Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
F12-35389-N).
No. 05-13-00635-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice O’Neill,
Justices Fillmore and Brown participating.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered November 24, 2014.
-4-
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
DAARON TAYVON BUYCKS, Appeal from the 195th Judicial District
Appellant Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
F12-33600-N).
No. 05-13-01385-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice O’Neill,
Justices Fillmore and Brown participating.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered November 24, 2014.
-5-
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
DAARON TAYVON BUYCKS, Appeal from the 195th Judicial District
Appellant Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
F12-34766-N).
No. 05-13-01386-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice O’Neill,
Justices Fillmore and Brown participating.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIED as
follows:
The section entitled “Offense for which Defendant Convicted” is modified to show
“Possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, codeine, in drug-free zone.”
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.
Judgment entered November 24, 2014.
-6-