Opinion
05-20-00794-CR
11-02-2021
SHAWN PATRICK THURMAN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
DO NOT PUBLISH
On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F18-26068-W
Before Justices Schenck, Smith, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Garcia
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DENNISE GARCIA JUSTICE
Appellant pleaded guilty and was convicted of burglary of a building, enhanced by two prior convictions. The court assessed punishment at ten years imprisonment and judgment was entered accordingly.
On appeal, appellant's counsel has filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining whether brief meets requirements of Anders). Counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant. The State filed a letter brief stating that it agrees with counsel's assessment. We advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response, but he did not file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (noting appellant has right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel).
As the State notes, the record does reflect error because the court failed to orally give the immigration consequences admonishment. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.13. Nonetheless, we agree with the State that the record does not demonstrate that this affected appellant's substantial rights. See VanNortrick v. State, 227 S.W.3d 706, 708 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007); TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(b).
As required, appellant's counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has provided appellant with a copy of the motion. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits.
Having reviewed the record, we agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record before us that arguably might support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); 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. See Tex.R.App.P. 43.2(a), (b).