Billy Reyes v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 186th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-05-00330-CR

Billy REYES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas ,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court . Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1995-CR-0141

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr , Judge Presiding (1)

Opinion by: Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Sitting: Sarah B. Duncan , Justice

Karen Angelini , Justice

Phylis Speedlin , Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 9, 2006

MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED AS REFORMED

Billy Reyes pleaded no contest to a charge of aggravated sexual assault of a child in exchange for the State's recommendation that adjudication be deferred. The State made no recommendation of a prison term should Reyes later be adjudicated guilty. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudication and placed Reyes on community supervision for a period of ten years. The State later filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, alleging Reyes violated various conditions of his community supervision. Reyes pleaded true to one of the allegations. The trial court adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him to ten years in prison.

Reyes's court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which she raises no arguable points of error and concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of 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. [Panel Op.] 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Counsel states Reyes was provided a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw and was further informed of his right to review the record (2) and file his own brief. Reyes has not done so.

After reviewing the record and counsel's brief, we find no reversible error and agree with counsel the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we grant the motion to withdraw filed by Reyes's counsel. Before we proceed further, however, we note the trial court's judgment erroneously recites June 30, 1990 as the date Reyes committed the offense for which he was ultimately convicted and sentenced. This date would have been correct had Reyes pleaded no contest to the various paragraphs of Count I of the indictment. But Reyes did not. Instead, he pleaded no contest to Count V, Paragraph A of the indictment. The date associated with that count and paragraph is June 30, 1994. We therefore reform the judgment to reflect that the date the offense was committed was June 30, 1994. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); see also Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (acknowledging appellate court's ability to reform a judgment resulting from a clerical error). As reformed, the trial court's judgment is affirmed. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-27; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Do not publish

1. The Honorable Pat Priest presided over the hearing concerning the State's Motion to Enter Adjudication of Guilt and Revoke Community Supervision.

2. 2Counsel is reminded that she should explain the procedure for obtaining the record from the trial court clerk.See Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.).