Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
MICHAEL CRUZ MIRANDA, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant entered a guilty plea to assault of a family member. The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt, placed appellant under community supervision for five years, and assessed a fine of $500. Subsequently, the State moved to adjudicate guilt. The trial court found all allegations true, adjudicated guilt, and sentenced appellant to confinement for six years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. We modify the trial court's judgment to delete the assessed fine. As modified, we affirm appellant's conviction.
Appellant's appointed counsel 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), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than 60 days have passed and no pro se response has been filed.
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
In presenting her evaluation of the record, counsel noted that the judgment contains a clerical error. We agree. The judgment adjudicating appellant's guilt includes a $500 fine that was not pronounced at the time the trial court sentenced appellant. When an accused receives deferred adjudication, no sentence is imposed. Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d 497, 502 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). When guilt is adjudicated, the order adjudicating guilt sets aside the order deferring adjudication, including the previously imposed fine. Id. Therefore, because the oral pronouncement controls, the fine, which was not assessed at the conclusion of the adjudication hearing, must be deleted from the judgment. See id.
Accordingly, we modify the judgment to delete the assessment of the $500 fine. As modified, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
PER CURIAM
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: NO. 14-15-01075-CR
Decided: October 18, 2016
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.).
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)