Opinion
05-22-00523-CR
12-05-2023
JERRY WAYNE FORD, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F20-76542
Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Reichek, and Breedlove
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MARICELA BREEDLOVE, JUSTICE
Jerry Wayne Ford was indicted for murder. The jury found appellant guilty, and the court assessed his punishment at life imprisonment. On appeal, appellant's court-appointed attorney filed a brief in which she concluded the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). She also filed an accompanying motion to withdraw as appointed counsel.
Appellant was provided a complete record and advised of his rights to file a pro se response. Appellant filed a pro se response.
Appellant's response does not address counsel's Anders brief or motion to withdraw but instead argues in four issues that trial counsel was ineffective.
The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives an Anders brief and a pro se response, the reviewing court has two choices. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). After conducting an independent examination of the record, "[the appellate court] may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[.] Or, it may determine 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. at 826-27 (internal citations omitted). The appellate court does not address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or in a pro se response when it has determined there are no arguable grounds for review. Id. at 827.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, including counsel's Anders brief and the issues raised in appellant's pro se response. We conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds for review, and, therefore, the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (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 appeal exist).
We note that counsel's Anders brief was deficient in several areas, failing to address the following: jury selection; jury instructions; any adverse rulings on post-trial motions; sufficiency of the evidence, specifically including a recitation of the elements of the offense and the facts and evidence adduced at trial relevant to those elements; and the arguments in appellant's pro se response. However, as our independent review of the record showed no arguable grounds for review, we note these deficiencies purely to provide guidance to counsel for future Anders briefs.
We grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court's judgments as modified.
JUDGMENT
Justices Partida-Kipness and Reichek participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.