From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barber v. State

Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas
Mar 24, 2015
NO. 01-13-00284-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 24, 2015)

Opinion

NO. 01-13-00284-CR

03-24-2015

JACOB MATTHEW BARBER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


On Appeal from the 258th District Court Polk County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 22,511

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted appellant Jacob Matthew Barber of the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and assessed punishment at twenty years' confinement in TDCJ. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.33, 22.02(a)(2) (West 2011). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.

Appellant's appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).

Counsel's brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal authority. 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and he is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (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, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We note that 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.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel's motion to withdraw. Attorney Stephen C. Taylor must immediately send appellant the required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).

Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Lloyd. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).


Summaries of

Barber v. State

Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas
Mar 24, 2015
NO. 01-13-00284-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 24, 2015)
Case details for

Barber v. State

Case Details

Full title:JACOB MATTHEW BARBER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas

Date published: Mar 24, 2015

Citations

NO. 01-13-00284-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 24, 2015)