eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2007-07

Victor Diaz Cortez v. State ( 2007 )


Menu:

  • Opinion issued July 6, 2007  















    In The

    Court of Appeals

    For The

    First District of Texas

    ____________



    NO. 01-06-01148-CR

    ____________



    VICTOR DIAZ CORTEZ, Appellant



    V.



    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee



    On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

    Harris County, Texas

    Trial Court Cause No. 1070296



    MEMORANDUM OPINION  

    Appellant, Victor Diaz Cortez, pleaded guilty to the offense of indecency with a child, and, after a pre-sentence investigation hearing, the trial court assessed punishment at confinement for 10 years. We affirm the judgment of the trial court as reformed.

    Counsel represents that he has served a copy of the brief on appellant. Counsel also advised appellant of her right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). More than 30 days have passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se brief. Having reviewed the record and counsel's brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit and that there is no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27(Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

    We note that the trial court's judgment incorrectly states that there was a plea bargain agreement in this case. The reporter's record, the court's docket entry for the plea, and the written stipulation of evidence, reflect that the plea was made without an agreement with the State as to punishment and that a presentence investigation was ordered. This Court has the authority to reform the trial court's judgment to correct a clerical error. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); See Bigley v. State, 865 S.W. 2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). The authority of an appellate court to reform incorrect judgments is not dependent upon a request of any party, nor does it turn on the question of whether or not a party made objection. See Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529-30 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd ); Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b). Therefore, we modify the trial court's judgment to read " Terms of plea bargain - no agreement, presentence investigation."

    We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court as reformed.

    We grant counsel's motion to withdraw. (1) See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).

    We deny any pending motions as moot.

    PER CURIAM

    Panel consists of Justices Nuchia, Hanks, and Bland.

    Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

    1.

    Counsel has a duty to inform appellant of the result of his appeal and also to inform him that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).