Cheryl Bernice Johnson v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 144th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-06-00405-CR

Cheryl Bernice JOHNSON,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas ,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2004-CR-2644

Honorable Mark Luitjen , Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Catherine Stone , Justice

Sitting: Alma L. L pez , Chief Justice

Catherine Stone , Justice

Karen Angelini , Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 6, 2006

AFFIRMED AS REFORMED

Cheryl Johnson pleaded guilty to the offense of possession of cocaine and true to the enhancement allegation. The trial court sentenced Johnson to ten years imprisonment, probated for ten years, and assessed a $1,200 fine. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Johnson's community supervision, alleging Johnson had violated the terms of her community supervision. After a hearing on the State's motion, the trial court revoked Johnson's community supervision and sentenced Johnson to ten years imprisonment and fined her $1,200. We affirm.

Johnson's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Counsel concludes that the appeal is without merit. (1) The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

A copy of counsel's brief was delivered to Johnson, who was advised of her right to examine the record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. After reviewing the record, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed. Furthermore, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n. 1 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.).

Catherine Stone , Justice

Do Not Publish

1. Counsel, however, notes that the original judgment that placed Johnson on probation states, "DEGREE OF OFFENSE: STATE JAIL FELONY"; "PLEA TO ENHANCEMENT: N/A"; and "FINDING ON ENHANCEMENT: NA." According to counsel, and we agree, the judgment should state that the offense is a third degree felony, that Johnson pled true to the enhancement, and that the court found the enhancement to be true. Counsel additionally notes that the judgment revoking Johnson's community supervision and sentencing her to prison also incorrectly states that the offense is a state jail felony when it should reflect that the offense is a third degree felony. An appellate court has the power to reform an incorrect judgment when it has the necessary information to do so. McCoy v. State, 81 S.W.3d 917, 920 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2002, pet. ref'd). We believe reformation is proper in this instance because we have all of the information we need to reform the judgments. The judgments are therefore ordered reformed to show the following: "DEGREE OF OFFENSE: THIRD DEGREE FELONY"; "PLEA TO ENHANCEMENT: TRUE"; and "FINDING ON ENHANCEMENT: TRUE."