Wanda Kolacek v. State ( 2015 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-15-00002-CR
____________________
WANDA KOLACEK, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 253rd District Court
Liberty County, Texas
Trial Cause No. CR30214 (Counts 1 and 2)
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In an open plea, Wanda Kolacek (Kolacek) pleaded guilty to two counts of
forgery of a government document. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.21(e) (West
2011). Kolacek waived a jury trial. Kolacek pleaded “true” in each count to the
State’s allegation that she had been convicted of committing nine prior felonies.
Based on Kolacek’s pleas, the trial court assessed a two-year sentence for each
count, to be served concurrently, and also ordered restitution in the amount of
$1,100.00 in Count I. Kolacek timely filed a notice of appeal.
1
Kolacek’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 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.
1978). On August 13, 2015, and September 17, 2015, we granted extensions of
time for Kolacek to file a pro se brief. Kolacek filed a pro se brief in response.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has explained that we need not
address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. See
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, we may
determine that (1) “the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining
that [the appellate court] has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[]” or
that (2) “arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court
so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.” Id. We have determined
that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently examined the entire
appellate record in this matter, as well as all briefs, and we agree 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 each judgment the section entitled “Terms of Plea
Bargain[,]” incorrectly recites that there was a plea bargain but the record indicates
2
that Kolacek entered a guilty plea but did not enter into a plea bargain with the
State as to either count. We also note that in each judgment the section entitled
“Plea to Enhancement Paragraph(s)[,]” incorrectly recites “N/A” when the record
indicates that Kolacek entered a plea of “true” to the enhancement paragraphs. This
Court has the authority to reform the trial court’s judgments to correct clerical
errors. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1993). Therefore, in each judgment we delete the language in the
“Terms of Plea Bargain[]” section and substitute “N/A” in its place, and we delete
the “N/A” in the section entitled “Plea to Enhancement Paragraph(s)[]” and
substitute “True” in its place. We affirm the trial court’s judgments as reformed. 1
AFFIRMED AS REFORMED.
_________________________
LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice
Submitted on November 30, 2015
Opinion Delivered December 9, 2015
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
1
Kolacek may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3