Ricky Lamar Randolph v. State

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-12-00053-CR ________________

RICKY LAMAR RANDOLPH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 11-12406

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found appellant Ricky Lamar Randolph guilty of felony theft, and the trial court assessed punishment at sixteen years of imprisonment.

Randolph’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 July 12, 2012, we granted an extension of time for Randolph to file a pro se brief. We received no response from Randolph.

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 the trial court’s judgment incorrectly recites that Randolph’s offense is a second-degree felony. This Court has the authority to modify the trial court’s judgment to correct a clerical error. Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Therefore, we delete “2nd degree felony” from the section of the judgment entitled “Degree of Offense” and substitute “state jail felony, sequenced prior felony convictions” in its place. We affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified.1

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

_________________________________

STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice Submitted on October 8, 2012 Opinion Delivered October 31, 2012 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.