Opinion
11-22-00027-CR
10-20-2022
RANDY GUERRA, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 90th District Court Stephens County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F36638
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Randy Guerra pleaded guilty to the third-degree felony offense of evading arrest with a motor vehicle, see Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04(a), (b)(2)(A) (West 2016), but not true to the deadly weapon allegation. The jury found Appellant guilty, as instructed, and it also found the deadly weapon allegation to be true. Upon Appellant's plea of true to an enhancement allegation, the jury assessed his punishment at confinement for twenty years. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(a) (West 2019). We affirm.
Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed in this court a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, and a copy of the clerk's record and the reporter's record. Counsel advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel's brief. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Appellant filed a pro se response in which he complains of the assistance of counsel and the deadly weapon finding. In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court of appeals may only 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. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.
We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
We grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.