Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-12-00412-CR Brenda Lee REED, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2010CR4729 Honorable Juanita A. Vasquez-Gardner, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Delivered and Filed: February 20, 2013 AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED Brenda Lee Reed pled nolo contendere to assaulting a public servant and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision. The State filed a motion to enter adjudication.

Although Reed pled “not true” to the alleged violation of the terms of her community supervision, the trial court found the alleged violation to be true based on the evidence presented by the State. The trial court adjudicated Reed’s guilt and sentenced her to two years imprisonment. Reed filed a pro se notice of appeal in the underlying cause.

04-12-00412-CR

Reed’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 1 Counsel concludes that the appeal has no merit. Reed was provided with a copy of the brief and informed of her right to review the record and file her own brief. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85–86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Reed did not file a pro se brief.

After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we conclude that the appeal is frivolous and without merit; however, we agree with the State that the judgment contains a typographical error reflecting that Reed pled true to the alleged violation. We modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect that Reed pled “not true,” and we affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified.

See Banks v. State, 708 S.W.2d 460, 462 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); Aubrety v. State, No. 04-10- 00708-CR, 2011 WL 5245342, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 2, 2011, no pet.).

Appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Reed wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Reed must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or Reed must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the later of: (1) the date of this opinion; or (2) the date the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for

Although the Anders brief refers to a second trial court cause number which was heard at the same time as the underlying cause, the notice of appeal contained in the appellate record refers only to the underlying trial court cause number. Accordingly, we do not have jurisdiction to consider any of the brief’s references to the second trial court cause number.

-2- 04-12-00412-CR

discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice DO NOT PUBLISH

-3-