Full Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-25-00268-CR ________________ MICAH LYNN RICHARDSON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 75th District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. 23DC-CR-00284 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A grand jury indicted Appellant Micah Lynn Richardson with driving while intoxicated, third offense or more, a third-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 49.04, 49.09(b)(2). The indictment also included an enhancement paragraph alleging a prior conviction for attempted burglary of a habitation, which would increase the applicable punishment range to that of a second-degree felony. See id. §§ 12.33(a) (providing second-degree felony punishment is a term of two to twenty years), 12.42(a) (addressing punishments enhanced from third-degree to second- 1 degree felony). Richardson entered an open plea of guilty to the charged offense and pleaded true to the enhancement allegation. Following a presentence investigation and punishment hearing, the trial court assessed punishment at twelve years’ confinement. 1 Richardson’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief presenting counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes that the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Richardson has filed a pro se brief. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in an Anders brief or pro se response. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine: (1) “that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[;]” or (2) “that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.” Id. (citations omitted). Upon receiving an Anders brief, a court must conduct a full examination of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have conducted an 1 We cite to the current versions of the Texas Penal Code, as any amendments to this section do not affect this appeal. 2 independent review of the record, appellate counsel’s brief and Richardson’s pro se brief, find no reversible error, and conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826–27. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Modifying the Judgment We have the power to reform or modify a judgment in Anders cases to address non-reversible error and to affirm the judgment as modified. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b) (allowing appellate court to modify trial court’s judgment and affirm as modified); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (noting a court of appeals may modify the lower court’s judgment by correcting or reforming it); Bray v. State, 179 S.W.3d 725, 729 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (exercising authority to reform judgment in Anders case and affirming trial court’s judgment). Here, the written judgment states the Punishment and Place of Confinement is “12 Year(s) TDCJ, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION.” Also, the written judgment correctly states the punishment. That said, under the section for “Terms of Plea Bargain (if any):” it states “12 Year(s) TDCJ, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION.” However, the record reflects that while Richardson pleaded guilty to the charged offense and true to the enhancement allegation, there 3 was no agreed punishment recommendation, and the trial court assessed punishment at twelve years’ confinement. Accordingly, consistent with the record in this case, we modify the judgment to delete “12 Year(s) TDCJ, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION” from the section entitled, “Terms of Plea Bargain (if any)” and replace it with “N/A.” See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley, 865 S.W.2d at 27–28. As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.2 AFFIRMED. W. SCOTT GOLEMON Chief Justice Submitted on October 26, 2026 Opinion Delivered October 28, 2026 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ. 2 Richardson may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 4