M ORE L AW
LEXAPEDIA
Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto

Information
About MoreLaw
Contact MoreLaw

Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 02-10-2019

Case Style:

Reggie Mason Smith v. The State of Texas

Case Number: 06-18-00116-CR

Judge: Josh R. Morriss, III

Court: Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

Plaintiff's Attorney: J. Randle Smolarz
Jerry D. Rochelle
Bradley Akins

Defendant's Attorney: Derric Scott McFarland

Description:



Judge gives man 45 years for burglary



Following a bench trial, Reggie Mason Smith was found guilty of burglary of a habitation
with a deadly weapon. After pleading true to the State’s enhancement allegation, Smith was
sentenced to forty-five years’ imprisonment. Smith appeals.
Smith’s attorney on appeal has filed a brief affirming that he has reviewed the record and
has found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised. The brief sets out the procedural
history and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the trial proceedings. Counsel
has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable
grounds to be advanced on appeal, thus meeting the standards applicable to his representation. See
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel also
filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.
On December 10, 2018, counsel mailed to Smith a copy of the brief, the appellate record,
and the motion to withdraw. Smith was informed of his right to review the record and file a pro se
response. By letter dated December 10, 2018, this Court informed Smith that any pro se response
was due on or before January 9, 2019. On January 16, this Court further informed Smith that the
case would be set for submission on the briefs on February 6, 2019. We received neither a pro se
response from Smith nor a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response.
We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record and find that no reversible
error exists. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We note,
3
however, some nonreversible errors in the judgment. In Anders cases, we may correct judgments
and affirm them as modified in cases where there is nonreversible error. Ferguson v. State, 435
S.W.3d 291, 294 (Tex. App.—Waco 2014, pet. struck) (comprehensively discussing appellate
cases that have modified judgments in Anders cases); see Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d) (appellate court authority to modify incorrect judgments not
dependent on request of any party); TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2. Although Smith’s conviction was the
result of a bench trial, the judgment mistakenly reflects that a plea agreement was entered and
contains the supposed terms of such a bargain. Also, while the clerk’s bill of costs demonstrates
that the amount of court costs was only $234.00, the judgment mistakenly assessed $484.00 in
court costs.

Outcome: We, therefore, modify the trial court’s judgment by deleting the section labeled “Terms of Plea Bargain” and to reflect that the correct amount of court costs is $234.00. We affirm the judgment, as modified.1

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



 
 
Home | Add Attorney | Add Expert | Add Court Reporter | Sign In
Find-A-Lawyer By City | Find-A-Lawyer By State and City | Articles | Recent Lawyer Listings
Verdict Corrections | Link Errors | Advertising | Editor | Privacy Statement
© 1996-2019 MoreLaw, Inc. - All rights reserved.