Colin Lee Romero v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-08-00476-CR NO. 09-08-00477-CR ____________________ COLIN LEE ROMERO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 07-00152 and 07-00187 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Colin Lee Romero entered a non-negotiated plea of guilty to two indictments for reckless manslaughter. The trial court convicted Romero and sentenced him to eighteen years of confinement in each case, and ordered that the sentences were to run concurrently. The trial court certified that these are not plea-bargain cases, and the defendant has the right of appeal. 1 Romero’s counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the records and concludes the appeals are 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 January 8, 2009, we gave Romero an extension of time in which to file pro se briefs. We received no response from the appellant. Because there were no plea-bargain agreements, we have jurisdiction over the appeals. See Jack v. State, 871 S.W.2d 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). The required admonishments appear in the records. See T EX. C ODE C RIM. P ROC. A NN. art. 26.13 (Vernon 2009). Romero signed judicial confessions in which he admitted guilt. Romero does not contest the voluntariness of his pleas of guilty. We have reviewed the appellate records, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support these appeals. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We note that the judgments in both cases incorrectly recite that there was a plea bargain agreement. This Court has the authority to reform the trial court’s judgments to correct clerical errors. See T EX. R. A PP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). In trial cause number 07-00152, in the section of the judgment entitled “Terms of Plea Bargain[,]” the judgment recites “CONFINEMENT IN THE INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION FOR A TERM OF 18 YEARS. 2 TO RUN CONCURRENT WITH CAUSE # 07-00187[.]” We delete this language and substitute “N/A” in its place. In trial cause number 07-00187, in the section of the judgment entitled “Terms of Plea Bargain[,]” the judgment recites “CONFINEMENT IN THE INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION FOR A TERM OF 18 MONTHS [sic]. TO RUN CONCURRENT WITH CAUSE # 07-00152[.]” We delete this language and substitute “N/A” in its place. We affirm the trial court’s judgments as reformed.1 AFFIRMED AS REFORMED. _________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on April 17, 2009 Opinion Delivered May 6, 2009 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ. 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in these cases by filing a petition for discretionary review. See T EX. R. A PP. P. 68. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.