Opinion
06-22-00110-CR
05-26-2023
ROY VAUGHN, JR., Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do Not Publish
Date Submitted: May 10, 2023
On Appeal from the 71st District Court Harrison County, Texas Trial Court No. 21-0355X
Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Scott E. Stevens Chief Justice
Following a jury trial, Roy Vaughn, Jr., was convicted of the third-degree-felony offense of escape while arrested and, after his punishment range was enhanced by two prior felony convictions, was sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment. Vaughn appeals.
Vaughn's appellate counsel has filed a brief stating that he has reviewed the record and has found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court proceedings. Since counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets the requirements of Anders v. California. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743-44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812-13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.
On March 10, 2023, counsel mailed to Vaughn copies of the brief, the appellate record, and the motion to withdraw. Counsel informed Vaughn of his rights to review the record and to file a pro se response. By letter dated March 13, 2023, this Court notified Vaughn that his pro se response to counsel's brief was due on or before April 12, 2023. By letter dated April 19, 2023, we notified Vaughn that the case would be submitted on briefs on May 10, 2023. Vaughn filed neither a pro se response nor a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response.
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial court's judgment. Id.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel's request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire 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 file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see Tex. R. App. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see Tex. R. App. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see Tex. R. App. P. 68.4.