Alan Keith Eaglin v. The State of Texas--Appeal from Crim Dist Ct of Jefferson County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-03-00125-CR

Alan Keith Eaglin,

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas,

Appellee

From the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Court # 86263

MEMORANDUM Opinion

Appellant Alan Eaglin was tried by a jury and convicted of possession of a controlled substance. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 481.115 (Vernon 2003). The court assessed punishment of 25 years confinement. Eaglin s counsel filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1976). We will affirm.

The brief reviews the indictment and statutes under which Eaglin was charged, the sufficiency of the admonishments, and the punishment assessed. In the brief, counsel states that [a]fter diligently reviewing the record in this case and researching the applicable law, [he] has found no reversible error committed by the trial court and no arguable grounds of error. See id. at 744.

We have conducted an independent review of the record to discover whether there are arguable grounds for appeal. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We determine there are none. The indictment invoked the district court s jurisdiction, and the court assessed punishment within the statutory range of punishment for the offense.

Although we find no issues which might support an appeal, we do find a clerical error in the judgment. The judgment identifies the statute for the offense as article 481.121(b)(3) of the Penal Code. There is no such article in the Penal Code, and section 481.121 of the Health and Safety Code covers the offense of possession of marihuana. Eaglin was indicted under section 481.115 of the Health and Safety Code and found guilty of possession of cocaine. Accordingly, we reform the judgment so that the statutory offense reads section 481.115(c) of the Health and Safety Code. We affirm the judgment as reformed. Counsel must advise Eaglin of our decision and of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See Sowels v. State, 45 S.W.3d 690, 694 (Tex. App. Waco 2001, no pet.).

BILL VANCE

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed November 10, 2004

Do not publish

[CRPM]