Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
LEE WESLEY ALFRED A/K/A LEE COOPER, Appellant
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 12-13755
Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Lee Wesley Alfred1 pled guilty to
the offense of felony theft. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find
Alfred guilty, but deferred finding him guilty. The trial court placed Alfred on
community supervision for three years and assessed a fine of $500. The State
subsequently filed a motion to revoke Alfred’s unadjudicated community
Lee Wesley Alfred is also known as Lee Cooper.
supervision. Alfred pled “true” to three violations of the terms of his community
supervision. The trial court found that Alfred violated the terms of the community
supervision order, revoked Alfred’s community supervision, and imposed a
sentence of two years of confinement.
Alfred’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, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); High v. State,
573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On November 21, 2012, we granted an
extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from
We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s
conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it
unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We note that the
trial court’s judgment incorrectly recites the subsections of the statute for the
offense as “31.03(e)(4)(A) PC[.]” This Court has the authority to reform the trial
court’s judgment to correct a clerical error. See Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27
(Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Therefore, we delete “31.03(e)(4)(A) PC” from the
section of the judgment entitled “Statute for Offense” and substitute “31.03
(e)(4)(F) PC” in its place. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03 (West Supp. 2012).
We affirm the trial court’s judgment as reformed.2
AFFIRMED AS REFORMED.
Submitted on March 5, 2013
Opinion Delivered March 27, 2013
Do not publish
Before Gaultney, Kreger and Horton, JJ.
Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.