Opinion
NO. 12-18-00264-CR
04-10-2019
JOSHUA PAUL TREW, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
APPEAL FROM THE 7TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT SMITH COUNTY , TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION
Joshua Paul Trew appeals his conviction for criminal nonsupport. Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In 2009, Appellant was indicted for criminal nonsupport. In 2011, Appellant entered a plea of "guilty" in exchange for a negotiated agreement as to punishment. The trial court accepted Appellant's plea, found him guilty of the offense and sentenced him to two years of confinement in a state jail facility, but suspended his sentence and placed him on community supervision for five years. The trial court also ordered that Appellant pay restitution to the victim in the amount of $16,282.72, along with other fees related to his community supervision.
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 25.05 (West 2011).
In August 2016, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant's community supervision, alleging that he failed to comply with the terms of his community supervision in several respects. Appellant pleaded "true" to the allegations in the State's motion. After a hearing, the trial court accepted Appellant's plea, revoked his community supervision, and sentenced him to two years of confinement in a state jail facility. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
Appellant's appellate counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v. State. Appellant's counsel relates that he reviewed the record and found no reversible error or jurisdictional defect. In compliance with High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel's brief contains a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.
In compliance with Kelly v. State , Appellant's counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant's review of the appellate record. 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief has expired and no pro se brief has been filed.
We considered counsel's brief and conducted our own independent review of the record. Id. at 811. We found no reversible error.
CONCLUSION
As required by Anders and Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant's counsel moved for leave to withdraw. See also 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 done so, we agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we grant Appellant's counsel's motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the trial court's judgment. Appellant's counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the date the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivered April 10, 2019.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT
Appeal from the 7th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-1770-09)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.