Case Information
*1 Vacate and Remand in part; Affirmed as Modified in part; Affirmed in part; and Opinion Filed May 13, 2015
In The
No. 05-14-01024-CR
No. 05-14-01025-CR
No. 05-14-01026-CR
No. 05-14-01027-CR WILLIAM TREMAINE PATTERSON, Appellant
V.
On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F-12-71245-M, F-14-45181-M, F-14-45182-M, and F-14-45183-M MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Francis, Brown, and Stoddart Opinion by Justice Francis
William Tremaine Patterson was charged by indictment with assault family violence. Under the agreement with the State, he pleaded guilty and, on January 2013, was placed on unadjudicated community supervision for five years and ordered to pay a fine of $1500. In April 2014, appellant was indicted for three drug-related felonies: possession with intent to deliver cocaine, tampering with physical evidence, and possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine. The State moved to revoke his community supervision and adjudicate his guilt. Appellant pleaded true to violating the conditions of his probation. He pleaded guilty to the three drug-related charges, two of which were enhanced by a prior felony, and true to the *2 assault family violence charge. The trial court granted the State’s motions and sentenced appellant to (a) confinement for one year in state jail for possession with intent to deliver cocaine, and (b) fifteen years in prison for each of the three remaining charges. For the reasons that follow, we affirm one of the trial court’s judgments, affirm two other judgments as modified, and remand the fourth judgment for further proceedings.
Appellant challenges the legality of his sentence for the assault family violence offense. He contends the offense was a third-degree felony, the range of punishment for which is two to ten years in prison and optional fine. See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 12.34(a) (West 2011). The State agrees that appellant was convicted of a third-degree felony. The trial court, however, imposed a sentence of fifteen years. “A sentence that is outside the maximum or minimum range of punishment is unauthorized by law and therefore illegal.” Mizell v. State , 119 S.W.3d 804, 806 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). The appropriate remedy for an illegal sentence is to vacate that sentence and remand the case for a new punishment hearing. See T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN art. 44.29(b) (West Supp. 2014). The State agrees with imposing that remedy in this case. We vacate the punishment imposed in appellant’s assault family violence judgment, and we remand case number 05-14-01024-CR (trial court number F-12-71245-M) to the trial court for a new punishment hearing.
Appellant’s attorney filed a brief in the remaining three cases in which she concludes the appeals are 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 records showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. Although we advised appellant of his right to file a pro se brief, he did not do so. See *3 Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (identifying duties of appellate courts and counsel in Anders cases).
We have reviewed the record and counsel’s briefs. 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 appeals are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeals.
Although not an arguable issue, we note the judgments in case numbers 05-14-01025-CR (trial court number F-14-45181-M) and 05-14-01027-CR (trial court number F-14-45183-M) do not reflect appellant’s pleas or the trial court’s findings on enhancement paragraphs alleged by the State. The record indicates one enhancement paragraph was pleaded in both indictments. The record also establishes that appellant pleaded true to the enhancements and the trial court found the enhancements true. Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgment in both cases to reflect that appellant pleaded true to the enhancement paragraphs and the trial court found the enhancements true.
We modify the trial court’s judgments in case numbers 05-14-01025-CR and 05-14- 01027-CR and affirm those judgments as modified. We affirm the trial court’s judgment in case number 05-14-01026-CR.
Do Not Publish
T EX . R. A PP . P. 47
141024F.U05
/Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we VACATE the sentence imposed in the trial court’s judgment, and the cause is REMANDED for a new punishment hearing. *5 MODIFIED
as follows:
Plea to 1st Enhancement Paragraph: TRUE
Findings on 1st Enhancement Paragraph: TRUE
As MODIFIED , the judgment is *7 MODIFIED
as follows:
Plea to 1st Enhancement Paragraph: TRUE
Findings on 1st Enhancement Paragraph: TRUE
As MODIFIED , the judgment is