James Chapman Jr. v. The State of Texas Appeal from 356th District Court of Hardin County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-14-00165-CR ____________________ JAMES CHAPMAN JR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _______________________________________________________ ______________ On Appeal from the 356th District Court Hardin County, Texas Trial Cause No. 21294 ________________________________________________________ _____________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury found James Chapman Jr. guilty of the offense of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, a state jail felony. Chapman elected for the court to assess punishment, and it assessed punishment at 180 days in prison. Chapman’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes that the case presents no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 1 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time for Chapman to file a pro se brief, but we received no response from Chapman. We have independently examined the clerk’s and reporter’s records, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. 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). Nevertheless, in our independent review of the record, we note that the judgment is incorrectly styled as a “JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION BY COURT— WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL,” and it indicates that Chapman pleaded “GUILTY[.]” The reporter’s record and clerk’s record reflect that Chapman actually pleaded “[n]ot guilty[,]” a jury found him guilty, and then Chapman elected to have the trial court impose his punishment. This Court has the authority to reform the trial court’s judgment to correct a clerical error. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 531 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d). We reform the trial court’s judgment to show that appellant entered a plea of not guilty, appellant was tried by a jury that found him guilty, and that the trial court assessed appellant’s punishment. See Abor v. State, 677 S.W.2d 560, 562 n.5 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1984, pet. ref’d) (reforming trial court’s 2 judgment to show appellant pleaded not guilty and was tried by a jury that found her guilty where, due to clerical error, the original judgment recited a plea of guilty and a waiver of trial by jury). Otherwise, we affirm the trial court’s judgment as reformed. 1 AFFIRMED. _________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice Submitted on December 15, 2014 Opinion Delivered January 21, 2015 Do Not Publish Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ. 1 Chapman may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. 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.
