Opinion
No. 10-19-00241-CR
11-06-2019
LANCE ROBERTO STENNIS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
From the 440th District Court Coryell County, Texas
Trial Court No. 18-24657
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Lance Roberto Stennis was found guilty of the offense of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 10 years in prison. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03.
Stennis's appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in support of the motion to withdraw, asserting that Stennis's appeal presents no issues of arguable merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Counsel advised Stennis that counsel had filed the motion and brief pursuant to Anders, advised Stennis of his right to review the record, and advised Stennis of his right to submit a response on his own behalf. Stennis did not submit a response.
Counsel asserts in the Anders brief that counsel has made a thorough review of the entire record, including the indictment, the sufficiency of the evidence, accomplice testimony, the jury charge, and the deadly weapon finding. After the review, counsel concludes there is no non-frivolous issue to raise in this appeal. Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error, and we conclude that counsel performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
Upon the filing of an Anders brief, as the reviewing appellate court, it is our duty to independently examine the record to decide whether counsel is correct in determining that an appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Arguments are frivolous when they "cannot conceivably persuade the court." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 436, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988).
Having carefully reviewed the entire record and the Anders brief, we have determined that this appeal is frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's Judgment of Conviction by Jury signed on June 19, 2019.
Should Stennis wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration has been overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition and all copies of the petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. (Tex. Crim. App. 1997, amended eff. Sept. 1, 2011). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.
Counsel's motion to withdraw from representation of Stennis is granted, and counsel is discharged from representing Stennis. Notwithstanding counsel's discharge, counsel must send Stennis a copy of our decision, notify him of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter certifying counsel's compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Neill
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed November 6, 2019
Do not publish
[CR25]