MoreLaw Suites

Virtual Offices of Solo Practice Lawyer Starting at $200 a Month

Office With MoreLaw Suites and Reduce Your Overhead

918-582-3993 - Info@MoreLaw.com

George Lynn Tarver, Jr., entered an open plea of guilty to possessing a prohibited substance

in a correctional facility, a third-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.11 (Supp.). After

a punishment trial to the bench, Tarver was sentenced to two years’ incarceration. He appeals.

Tarver’s attorney on appeal has filed a brief stating that he has reviewed the record and has

found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised. The brief sets out the procedural history

of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the trial proceeding. Meeting the

requirements of Anders v. California, counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. 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 November 9, 2019, counsel mailed to Tarver a copy of the brief, the appellate record,

and the motion to withdraw. Tarver was informed of his right to review the record and file a pro se

response. By letter dated November 12, this Court informed Tarver that any pro se response was

due on or before December 12. On December 31, this Court further informed Tarver that the case

would be set for submission on the briefs on January 21, 2020. We received neither a pro se

response from Tarver 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 Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605, 623 (2005); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d

3

824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We do note, however, that the trial court’s judgment in this

case mistakenly states the terms of the plea bargain agreement with the State.

This Court has the authority to modify the judgment to make the record speak the truth

when the matter has been called to our attention by any source. French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607

(Tex. Crim. App. 1992). In Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d),

the court noted that the authority of the appellate court to modify incorrect judgments is not

dependent on the request of any party; the appellate court may act sua sponte. Rule 43.2 of the

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides direct authority for this Court to modify the judgment

of the trial court. TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2. Under a section titled “Terms of Plea Bargain,” the

judgment states, “CONFINEMENT IN THE INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION OF THE TEXAS

DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE FOR A TERM OF TWO (2) YEARS,” but the reporter’s record reveals that Tarver and the State agreed to a sentencing cap of four years.1

Accordingly, we modify the judgment to reflect that agreement.

We modify the “Terms of Plea Bargain” section in the judgment to show that it was for confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of no more than four years. As modified, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.2