Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2009

Lloyd Dwain Hope v. State

Lloyd Dwain Hope v. State
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided May 6, 2009

Lloyd Dwain Hope v. State

Opinion

In The



Court of Appeals



Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont



____________________



NO. 09-08-00453-CR

____________________



LLOYD DWAIN HOPE, Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee




On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 90500




MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Lloyd Dwain Hope pled guilty to aggravated assault. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Hope guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Hope on community supervision for seven years, and assessed a fine of $1000. On July 28, 2008, the State filed a motion to revoke Hope's unadjudicated community supervision. Hope pled "true" to four violations of the conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Hope violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Hope guilty of aggravated assault, and assessed punishment at seven years of confinement.

Hope'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 December 18, 2008, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from 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 judgment incorrectly recites that Hope was charged under section "22.011(a)(2)(A) Penal Code." 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). Therefore, we delete this language and substitute "22.02(a)(1) Penal Code" in its place. We affirm the trial court's judgment as reformed. (1)





AFFIRMED AS REFORMED.







_________________________________

HOLLIS HORTON

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Do Not Publish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 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.