Robert Trayvon McQueen v. The State of Texas Appeal from 258th District Court of Polk County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-21-00235-CR __________________ ROBERT TRAYVON MCQUEEN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 258th District Court Polk County, Texas Trial Cause No. 27,966 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury found Robert Trayvon McQueen guilty of evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle and assessed punishment as a prior felony offender at nine years of imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04(a), (b)(2)(A). McQueen’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. 1 Crim. App. 1978). On February 2, 2022, we granted an extension of time for McQueen to file a pro se brief. We received no response from McQueen. We reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). However, we note that the trial court’s judgment contains a clerical error because it incorrectly states that McQueen pleaded “GUILTY” to the offense, whereas the reporter’s record reflects that he pleaded “[n]ot guilty.” This Court has the authority to modify the trial court’s judgment to correct clerical errors. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect that McQueen pleaded “NOT GUILTY” to the offense. We affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified. 1 AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. _________________________ W. SCOTT GOLEMON Chief Justice Submitted on May 12, 2022 Opinion Delivered June 8, 2022 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ. McQueen may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.1. 2 1
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.
