Opinion
NO. 01-18-00696-CR
11-21-2019
ANTHONY RAY CHILDRESS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 263rd District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1421445
Appellant, Anthony Ray Childress, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault of a family member with one enhancement. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2). Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court deferred an adjudication of guilt and placed appellant under community supervision. The State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, alleging multiple violations of the terms of appellant's community supervision. The trial court found that appellant had violated the terms of community supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and assessed punishment at 20 years' confinement. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.
Appellant's appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and therefore the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Counsel's brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel discusses the evidence adduced, supplies us with references to the record, and provides us with citation to legal authorities. Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and that he is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 154 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
Here, counsel's brief reflects that he delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Appellant has not filed a pro se response.
We have independently reviewed the entire record, and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (explaining that frivolity is determined by considering whether there are "arguable grounds" for review); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether the appeal is wholly frivolous); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155. An appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the 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, Adam Banks Brown, must immediately send the notice required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that 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 Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-27.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Goodman, and Countiss. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).