AFFIRMED as MODIFIED and Opinion Filed October 5, 2023

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-00349-CR ADRIAN MALDONADO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F-2024476-V MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Reichek, and Breedlove Opinion by Justice Reichek Adrian Maldonado was indicted for felony murder. The indictment alleged that while in the course of committing the felony of evading arrest or detention in a motor vehicle, appellant committed certain acts clearly dangerous to human life and struck a vehicle occupied by A.M., causing her death. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(b)(3). Appellant pleaded guilty before a jury. The jury found appellant guilty, as instructed by the trial court, and assessed his punishment at forty years’ confinement.

On appeal, appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which he concluded the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. He also filed an accompanying motion to withdraw as appointed counsel.

When an appellate court receives an Anders brief asserting no arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must determine that issue independently by conducting our own review of the record. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) (emphasizing court, and not appointed counsel, determines whether case is “frivolous” after full examination of proceedings); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (quoting Anders). If we conclude, after conducting an independent review, that “appellate counsel has exercised professional diligence in assaying the record for error” and agree the appeal is frivolous, we should grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. Crowe v. State, 595 S.W.3d 317, 319 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, no pet.) (quoting Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)); see In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

The brief before us meets the requirements of Anders. It presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there were no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Appellant was provided a complete record and advised of his rights to file a pro se response. He did not file a response. In a letter brief, the State agrees there are no arguable grounds for reversal.

–2– We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit, and we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

Although not an arguable issue, as pointed out in the State’s letter brief, the trial court’s judgment does not accurately identify the statute for the offense. The judgment states that the “Statute for Offense” is § 19.02(c) of the Texas Penal Code. Section 19.02(c) provides that murder is a first-degree felony. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(c). The elements of felony murder are set out in § 19.02(b)(3). Id. § 19.02(b)(3); see McDade v. State, 613 S.W.3d 349, 358 & n.12 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2020, no pet.). This Court has the power to modify a judgment to make the record speak the truth when we have the necessary information before us to do so. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d). Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect that the “Statute for Offense” is § 19.02(b)(3) of the penal code.

–3– We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified.

/Amanda L. Reichek/ AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE Do Not Publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

220349F.U05

–4– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT ADRIAN MALDONADO, Appellant On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas No. 05-22-00349-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F-2024476-V. Opinion delivered by Justice THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Reichek. Justices Partida-Kipness and Breedlove participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED as follows: “Statute for Offense” is modified to state “19.02(b)(3) Penal Code.” As MODIFIED, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 5th day of October, 2023.

–5–