Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2009

Robert Michael Vega v. State

Robert Michael Vega v. State
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided December 16, 2009

Robert Michael Vega v. State

Opinion

In The



Court of Appeals



Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont



____________________



NO. 09-09-00155-CR

____________________



ROBERT MICHAEL VEGA, Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee




On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 96758




MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Robert Michael Vega was indicted for capital murder. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Vega pled guilty to the lesser-included offense of murder. As part of the plea bargain agreement, the trial court granted Vega the right to appeal. The trial court found Vega guilty of murder and assessed punishment at sixty years of confinement.

Vega's appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is 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 August 20, 2009, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant.

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. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We note that in the section entitled "Statute for Offense[,]" the trial court's judgment incorrectly recites "19.03(a)(2) Penal Code[.]" See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 19.03(a)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2009) (capital murder). This court has the authority to reform the trial court's judgment to correct a clerical error. See Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Therefore, we delete this language and substitute "19.02(b) Penal Code" in its place. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 19.02(b) (Vernon 2003) (murder). We affirm the trial court's judgment as reformed. (1)

AFFIRMED AS REFORMED.





_________________________________

HOLLIS HORTON

Justice



Submitted on November 24, 2009

Opinion Delivered December 16, 2009

Do Not Publish



Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.

1. Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.