Lee Wesley Alfred a/k/a Lee Cooper v. The State of TexasAppeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County (memorandum opinion )

Annotate this Case
Download PDF In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-12-00245-CR _________________ LEE WESLEY ALFRED A/K/A LEE COOPER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 12-13755 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION 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 Alfredâ s unadjudicated community 1 Lee Wesley Alfred is also known as Lee Cooper. 1 supervision. Alfred pled â trueâ 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 Alfredâ s community supervision, and imposed a sentence of two years of confinement. Alfredâ s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counselâ 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 the appellant. We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counselâ 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 courtâ s judgment incorrectly recites the subsections of the statute for the offense as â 31.03(e)(4)(A) PC[.]â This Court has the authority to reform the trial courtâ s judgment to correct a clerical error. See Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Therefore, we delete â 31.03(e)(4)(A) PCâ from the section of the judgment entitled â Statute for Offenseâ and substitute â 31.03 2 (e)(4)(F) PCâ in its place. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03 (West Supp. 2012). We affirm the trial courtâ s judgment as reformed.2 AFFIRMED AS REFORMED. ___________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice Submitted on March 5, 2013 Opinion Delivered March 27, 2013 Do not publish Before Gaultney, Kreger and Horton, JJ. 2 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3