Robert Dewayne Lotts v. the State of Texas

Motion to Withdraw Granted, Affirmed as Modified, and Memorandum
Opinion filed August 27, 2024.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-23-00785-CR

ROBERT DEWOYNE LOTTS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 278th District Court
Leon County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 18-0046CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Robert Dewoyne Lotts appeals a judgment adjudicating guilt on a
charge of burglary of a habitation. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a).

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in
which he concludes the appeal is frivolous and without merit and there is no
reversible error. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and supplying us
with references to the record and legal authority, demonstrating why there are no
arguable grounds to be advanced for reversal of the judgment. See High v. State,
573 S.W.2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). A copy of counsel’s brief was
delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate
record and file a pro se brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). At
appellant’s request, the record was provided to him. As of this date, although more
than 30 days have passed since the record was provided, no pro se brief has been
filed. The State declined to file a brief in response to the Anders brief.

In the Anders brief, counsel has identified non-reversible error in the
judgment. In an Anders case when non-reversible error is identified and the court
has the necessary information for reformation, Texas courts of appeals may modify
such judgments and affirm them as modified. See Cummins v. State, 646 S.W.3d
605, 610–18 (Tex. App.—Waco 2022, pet. ref’d) (elaborating on the procedure for
modifying judgments and affirming them as modified in Anders cases in
circumstances where only non-reversible error is found).

At the conclusion of the trial court’s hearing on the State’s motion to
adjudicate guilt, the trial court stated on the record that it found true allegations
that appellant violated conditions 1, 16, and 16(a) of his community supervision,
and it expressly found not true the allegation appellant had violated condition 9
while observing there was “really no evidence presented on” allegations that
appellant had violated any other condition of his community supervision.
However, the written judgment reflects appellant was found to have violated
condition 9 in addition to conditions 1, 16, and 16(a). Accordingly, we will
modify the judgment to reflect the trial court did not find appellant to have violated
condition 9. See Ramsey v. State, No. 10-19-00284-CR, 2021 WL 3773522, at *4

2
(Tex. App.—Waco Aug. 25, 2021, pet. ref’d) (mem. op. not designated for
publication).

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that,
except for the modification identified above, the appeal is wholly frivolous and
without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. We are not to
address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response
when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v.
State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed as modified.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Zimmerer, and Hassan.
Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

3