Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 07-05-2021
Case Style:
David Lorenza Joyner v. The State of Texas
Case Number: 01-18-00875-CR
Judge: PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Hightower, and Rivas-Molloy.
Court: Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas
Plaintiff's Attorney: The Honorable Kim K Ogg
Daniel C. McCrory
Defendant's Attorney:
Description:
Houston, Texas - Criminal defense attorney represented David Lorenza Joyner with a Aggravated Sexual Assault of a child charge.
A jury found appellant, David Lorenza Joyner, guilty of aggravated sexual
assault of a child. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.021(a). The jury also found two
enhancement allegations to be true, one of which alleged a prior sexual assault
conviction and resulted in an automatic life sentence. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 2
12.42(c)(2). The trial court certified that this was not a plea-bargain case, and that
appellant had the right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant timely
filed a notice of appeal.
Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along
with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and that,
therefore, the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a
professional evaluation of the record and supplying this Court with references to the
record and legal authority. See id. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807,
812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that she has thoroughly reviewed the
record and that she is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal.
See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
Appellant’s counsel has certified that she mailed a copy of the motion to
withdraw and the Anders brief to appellant and informed appellant of his right to file
a response and to access the record. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008). Furthermore, counsel certified that she sent appellant the form
motion for pro se access to the records for his response. See Kelly v. State, 436
S.W.3d 313, 322 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was provided a copy of the
record.3
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we
conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable
grounds for review, and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S.
at 744 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full
examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State,
300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine
whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–
28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (reviewing court is not to address merits of each claim
raised in Anders brief or pro se response after determining there are no arguable
grounds for review); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155. An appellant may challenge a
holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for
discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178
S.W.3d at 827 n.6.
Although there is no reversable error in this case, we note the trial court’s
judgment does not accurately reflect the proceedings. The judgment states “Not
Applicable” in the sections regarding appellant’s pleas and the findings on the two
enhancement paragraphs. The record demonstrates that appellant pleaded “Not True”
to both enhancement paragraphs and the jury found both to be “True.” We have the
authority to reform a judgment to make the record speak the truth when we have the
necessary information before us to do so. See TEX.R. APP. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 4
865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607,
609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Nolan v. State, 39 S.W.3d 697, 698 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.). Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgment
to reflect that (1) appellant pleaded “Not True” to both enhancement paragraphs and
(2) the jury found both enhancement paragraphs to be “True.”
Outcome: We affirm the judgment of the trial court as modified and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: