Affirmed as Modified; Opinion Filed October 30, 2013.
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-12-01485-CR
LOUIS HANCOCK DAITCH, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F04-44009-J
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Moseley, Lang, and Brown
Opinion by Justice Lang
Louis Hancock Daitch appeals from the revocation of his community supervision for the
offense of possession of cocaine in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams.
TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(a), (d) (West 2010). The trial court assessed
punishment at ten years’ imprisonment and ordered the sentence to run consecutively with the
sentence in cause no. F11-45640-J (cause no. 05-12-01487-CR). On appeal, appellant’s attorney
filed a brief in which she 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 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel
delivered a copy of the brief to appellant.
Appellant filed a pro se response raising several issues After reviewing counsel’s brief,
appellant’s pro se response, and the record, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit.
See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s
duty in Anders cases). We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
Although not an arguable issue, we note the first page of the judgment incorrectly states
“this sentence shall run concurrently.” The record shows the trial judge ordered the sentence in
this case to run consecutively with the sentence imposed in case no. F11-45640-J. The
paragraph containing the cumulation order is located on the second page of the judgment.
Accordingly, we modify the section of the trial court’s judgment that says “punishment and place
of confinement” to state this sentence will run consecutively with the sentence in case no. F11-
45640-J. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley, 865 S.W.2d at 27–28; Asberry, 813 S.W.2d at
529–30.
As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/s/ Douglas Lang
DOUGLAS S. LANG
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
121485F.U05
-2-
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
LOUIS HANCOCK DAITCH, Appellant Appeal from the Criminal District Court
No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
No. 05-12-01485-CR V. F04-44009-J).
Opinion delivered by Justice Lang, Justices
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Moseley and Brown participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is MODIFIED as
follows:
The section entitled “Punishment and Place of Confinement” is modified to show “This
sentence shall run consecutively (see below).”
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.
Judgment entered October 30, 2013.
/s/ Douglas Lang
DOUGLAS S. LANG
JUSTICE
-3-