Opinion
NUMBER 13-13-00371-CR
04-28-2016
PETER ANTHONY TRAYLOR, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 366th District Court of Collin County, Texas.
ORDER OF ABATEMENT
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides
OrderPer Curiam
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant's counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Counsel's brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why counsel concluded there are no arguable grounds for relief.
This case is before the Court on transfer from the Fifth Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.).
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). In this evaluation, we consider the record, the arguments raised in the Anders brief, and issues appellant points out in his pro se brief. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902 (5th Cir. 1998); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). A court of appeals has two options when an Anders brief and a subsequent pro se response are filed. After reviewing the entire record, it may: (1) determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it finds no reversible error; or (2) determine that there are arguable grounds for appeal and remand the case to the trial court for appointment of new appellate counsel. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). If the court finds arguable grounds for appeal, it may not review those grounds until after new counsel has briefed those issues on appeal. Id.
After our independent review of the record, we conclude that there are "arguable" appellate issues in this case. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-27. For instance, appellant has raised issues concerning his right to a speedy trial and right to effective assistance of counsel. We stress that this is not an exhaustive list of arguable issues that could be raised on appeal and, further, that we have not determined that any of these arguments have merit.
We conclude that appellate counsel has met his professional obligations under Anders and GRANT his motion to withdraw. We ABATE the appeal and REMAND the case to the trial court to appoint a new appellate attorney. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409. The trial court shall make the appointment and ensure that a supplemental record of the proceedings is filed in this Court no later than twenty days from the date of this order. The appeal will be reinstated upon receipt of the supplemental record. Appellant's brief on the merits will be due thirty days after the supplemental record is filed.
This Court will entertain motions to extend time to file appellate briefs should appellant or the State require supplementation, if any, of the reporter's record or clerk's record. --------
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PER CURIAM Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed this the 28th day of April, 2016.