In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-16-00111-CR
____________________
BROCK CHAMBERS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_________________________________ ______________________
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 12-14060
____________________________________________ ____________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Brock Chambers 1 pleaded
guilty as a repeat felony offender to the state jail felony offense of delivery of a
controlled substance. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find
Chambers guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Chambers on
community supervision for five years, and assessed a fine of $500. The State
1
The clerk’s record shows that Brock Chambers is also known as Brock
Anthony Chambers and Bro Hung.
1
subsequently filed a motion to revoke Chambers’s unadjudicated community
supervision. Chambers pleaded “true” to one violation of the conditions of his
community supervision. The trial court found that Chambers violated the
conditions of his community supervision, found Chambers guilty of delivery of a
controlled substance, and assessed punishment at ten years of confinement.
Chambers’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 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1978). On September 29, 2016, we granted an extension of time for
appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from Chambers.
We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s
conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. In our review of the record,
we noted that the trial court’s judgment incorrectly recites that the degree of the
offense with which Chambers was charged was a second-degree felony. The
indictment reflects Chambers was charged with violating section 481.112 of the
Texas Health and Safety Code (the Texas Controlled Substances Act), and the
indictment and the reporter’s record of the sentencing hearing reflect that the
offense with which Chambers was charged was a state jail felony, but his
punishment exposure was increased due to his sequenced prior felony convictions.
2
This Court has the authority to modify the trial court’s judgment to correct a
clerical error. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28
(Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment to remove
“2ND DEGREE FELONY” from that section of the judgment entitled “Degree[]”
and substitute “STATE JAIL FELONY” in its place.
We find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the
appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We
affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified. 2
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
______________________________
STEVE McKEITHEN
Chief Justice
Submitted on December 29, 2016
Opinion Delivered January 11, 2017
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
2
Chambers may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3