In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-24-00156-CR

JOE LEMEUL SIMMONS, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 251st District Court Randall County, Texas Trial Court No. 33,377-C, Honorable Ana Estevez, Presiding June 26, 2025 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.

On November 8, 2023, Appellant, Joe Lemeul Simmons, entered a guilty plea to two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child.1 The trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of ten years. It also assessed a fine. On November 20, 2023, the State filed a motion to proceed with adjudication of guilt. The State alleged Appellant failed to comply with the condition

Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders2 brief. We grant counsel’s motion, modify the judgments, and affirm the judgments as modified.

In support of her motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that she has conducted a conscientious examination of the record and, in her opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under the controlling authorities, the record presents no reversible error. In a letter to Appellant, counsel notified him of the motion to withdraw; provided him with a copy of the motion, Anders brief, and motion to access the appellate record; and informed him of his right to file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying appointed counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief). By letter, this Court also advised Appellant of his right to

file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief and provided him a copy of the appellate record. Appellant has not filed a response. The State has not filed a brief.

By her Anders brief, counsel discusses areas in the record where reversible error may have occurred but concludes that the appeal is frivolous. We have independently examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal, but we have found no such issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1969). Following our careful review of the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we conclude that there are no grounds for appellate review that would result in reversal of Appellant’s conviction or sentence.

Although not an arguable issue, the trial court’s judgments incorrectly state that Appellant pleaded “true” to the allegation in the State’s motion to adjudicate. The record shows that Appellant pleaded “not true.” Appellate courts may modify a trial court’s judgment and affirm it as modified. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). A court of appeals has the authority to correct and reform a judgment to make the record speak the truth when it has the information to do so. Blackstock v. Dudley, 12 S.W.3d 131, 139 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1999, no pet.).

Accordingly, we modify the sections of the judgments titled “Plea to Motion to Adjudicate” to read “Not True.”

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

Judy C. Parker Justice

Do not publish.