DEUNDRA JOHNSON v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (2011)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Justice Fillmore

Deundra Johnson appeals from the adjudication of his guilt for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.   On appeal, Johnson'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 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978).   Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to Johnson.   We advised Johnson of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response.

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief.   See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (court of appeals's duty is to determine whether there are any arguable issues, and, if so, to remand the case to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to address those issues).   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 trial court found appellant violated the conditions of community supervision as set out in the State's amended motion to adjudicate.   The judgment, however, recites the trial court found appellant violated the conditions of community supervision as recited in the State's original motion to adjudicate.   Thus, the judgment is incorrect.

We modify the trial court's judgment to show the trial court found appellant violated “the terms and conditions of community supervision as set out in the State's amended motion to adjudicate.”   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.

ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE