Opinion
02-23-00048-CR
06-20-2024
Marquis Sypho, Appellant v. The State of Texas
Do Not Publish Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b)
On Appeal from the 213th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1529695D
Before Kerr, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Elizabeth Kerr Justice
A jury convicted Appellant Marquis Deshawn Sypho of capital murder. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.03(a)(2). He received an automatic life sentence without the possibility of parole. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.31(a)(2). Sypho appealed his conviction. After reviewing appellate counsel's Anders brief and conducting an independent review of the record, we affirm the judgment.
Sypho's court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel asserts that, in his professional opinion, this appeal is frivolous. Counsel's brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the appellate record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510-11 & n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
In compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel (1) notified Sypho of his motion to withdraw; (2) provided him a copy of both the motion and the brief; (3) informed him of his right to file a pro se response; (4) informed him of his pro se right to seek discretionary review should this court hold the appeal frivolous; and (5) took concrete measures to facilitate his review of the appellate record. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). The State declined to file a brief and instead filed a letter in which it agreed with appointed counsel that the appeal is frivolous. This court granted Sypho's request to examine the record. Sypho filed a timely pro se response, but he did not present any arguable grounds for our review. The State, despite being given an opportunity to do so, declined to file anything in response to Sypho's pro se response.
After an appellant's court-appointed counsel fulfills the requirements of Anders and files a motion to withdraw on the ground that an appeal is frivolous, this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record to see if there is any arguable ground that may be raised on his behalf. See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. Only then may we grant counsel's motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82- 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 351 (1988).
We have carefully reviewed counsel's brief, Sypho's pro se response, and the appellate record and have determined that the record contains no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We find nothing in the appellate record that arguably might support this appeal. See id. at 827-28; see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court's judgment.