Tashima Nicole Everhart was convicted of fraudulent use or possession of less than five items of identifying information/habitual, assault on a public servant, and forgery of a financial instrument/check. In each case, she was given a suspended sentence and placed on community supervision. She was subsequently convicted on a new charge of fraudulent use or possession of fifty or more items of identifying information, and the trial court revoked her probation on all three previous offenses and sentenced her to two years in state jail on the forgery charge and five years in prison on the other two charges, with all sentences to run concurrently.

Appellant’s attorney filed a brief in which he 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 *2 are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–12 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. We advised appellant of her right to file a pro se response, but she did not file a pro se response. See 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 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 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 judgment revoking community supervision in No. 05-14-00061-CR (fraudulent use or possession of less than five items of identifying information/habitual) does not reflect appellant’s pleas or the trial court’s findings on two enhancement paragraphs alleged in the indictment. The pleas and findings are reflected on the original judgment placing appellant on community supervision. Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgment revoking community supervision in No. 05-14-00061-CR to reflect that appellant pleaded true to both the first and second enhancement paragraphs and the trial court found true both the first and second enhancement paragraphs. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 43.2(b); Asberry v. State , 813 S.W.2d 526, 529–30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d).

We affirm the judgments in Nos. 05-14-00062-CR and 05-14-00063-CR. As modified, we affirm the judgment in 05-14-00061-CR and order the trial court to enter an amended judgment revoking community supervision reflecting the above modifications.

Do Not Publish /Molly Francis/ T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b) MOLLY FRANCIS 140061F.U05 JUSTICE *4 MODIFIED

as follows:

To reflect (1) a Plea of True to the 1st and 2nd Enhancement Paragraphs and (2) a Finding of True to the 1st and Second Enhancement Paragraphs.

As MODIFIED , the judgment is