Opinion
01-23-00689-CR
08-15-2024
DANTRAVIAS JAMAL MCNEIL, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do not publish. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 230th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1686685
Panel consists of Hightower, Rivas-Molloy, and Farris Justices.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Appellant Dantravias Jamal McNeil pleaded guilty to the first-degree felony offense of murder. See Tex. Penal Code § 19.02 (b), (c). After a presentence investigation hearing, the trial court signed a judgment of conviction and sentenced
Appellant to sixty years' confinement in the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.
Appellant's sentence was reduced by the 574 days he served in jail awaiting conviction.
No fines were assessed against Appellant.
Appellant's appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, along with a supporting brief, stating the record presents no reversible error and requesting permission to withdraw from his representation of Appellant. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Because we find no meritorious issues after an independent review of the record, we affirm the trial court's judgment and grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
Discussion
Counsel filed an Anders brief stating he has complied with all Anders requirements and requesting he be allowed to withdraw from his representation. Counsel states his professional opinion that after reviewing the record, no arguable grounds for reversal exist and thus any appeal of the trial court's judgment would lack merit and be frivolous. See id. at 744. Counsel's brief meets the minimum Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and explaining why, after careful review of the record, he is unable to advance any grounds of error warranting reversal. See id.; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). The State waived its right to file a response, and Appellant did not file a pro se brief in response to counsel's Anders brief.
Appellant's appointed counsel advised the Court that he provided Appellant with a copy of counsel's motion to withdraw and of his brief, and he advised Appellant of his right to review the trial record and prepare his own appellate brief. In addition, appointed counsel provided Appellant with the form required to obtain a free copy of the record and the address to which the form should be mailed.
In Anders, the United States Supreme Court held that "the responsibility to determine whether an appeal is frivolous in nature lies with the appellate court- not with the attorney of record." Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 765-66 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Thus, we must independently decide whether the present appeal raises any meritorious "arguable grounds" for review. Id. at 767. If we determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must "remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues." Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). If, on the other hand, we conclude the appeal is frivolous, we may issue an opinion affirming the trial court's judgment and explaining that, after reviewing the record, we find no reversible error. Id. at 826-27. The appellant may challenge that holding by filing a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. at 827 & n.6.
After conducting an independent review of the record on appeal, we conclude there is no reversible error in the record, there are no arguable grounds for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing that reviewing court-and not counsel-determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is frivolous); Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 767 (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record).
Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel's motion to withdraw. Court-appointed counsel James F. Pons must immediately send
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 with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 674 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (applying Ex parte Wilson to Anders case).
Appellant the notice required under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 6.5(c).