Cristian Carlos Tirado v. State ( 2018 )

Affirmed as Modified and Opinion Filed September 21, 2018
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-17-01157-CR
CRISTIAN CARLOS TIRADO, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F16-71061-U
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Myers, and Justice Stoddart
Opinion by Chief Justice Wright
A jury convicted Cristian Carlos Tirado for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and
the trial court assessed punishment at two years’ imprisonment. On appeal, appellant’s attorney
filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief
meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a
professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to
advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining
whether brief meets requirements of Anders). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant.
We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response.
See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (noting appellant has right to
file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel).
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. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support
the appeal.
Although not an arguable issue, we note the trial court’s judgment incorrectly recites the
punishment was assessed by the jury. The record, however, shows appellant elected to have the
trial court assess the punishment. Accordingly, on our own motion, we modify the section of the
judgment entitled “punishment assessed by” to show “Court.” TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v.
State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (courts of appeals have authority to modify
a judgment); Estrada v. State, 334 S.W.3d 57, 63–64 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.).
As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/Carolyn Wright/
CAROLYN WRIGHT
CHIEF JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
171157F.U05
–2–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
CRISTIAN CARLOS TIRADO, Appellant On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District
Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-17-01157-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. F16-71061-U.
Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Myers and Stoddart participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is MODIFIED
as follows:
The section entitled “Punishment Assessed by” is modified to show “Court.”
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment
Judgment entered September 21, 2018.
–3–