Opinion
01-20-00296-CR
01-27-2022
LEWIS CHARLES HALL, JR., Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do not publish. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 264th District Court Bell County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 79383
Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Farris.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Appellant, Lewis Charles Hall, Jr., pleaded no contest to the offense of arson and was sentenced by the trial court to six years' incarceration in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. We affirm.
On appeal, Hall's appointed counsel 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 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.).
Counsel advised Hall of his right to access the record and provided him with a form motion for access to the record. Counsel further advised Hall of his right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. Hall did not request access to the record and did not file a pro se response to counsel's brief.
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 Tim Copeland must immediately send Hall the required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.
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).