Opinion
NO. 01-18-01042-CR
12-05-2019
MARQUIS A. WILLIAMS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from 248th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1565171
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Marquis A. Williams, pleaded guilty to the first-degree felony offense of murder, without an agreed punishment recommendation from the State. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 19.02(b)(1), (2). At the presentence investigation hearing, the trial court entered appellant's plea of guilty. The trial court heard testimony from the victim's family, appellant, and appellant's mother, and the trial court assessed appellant's punishment at 40 years' confinement, which is within the applicable sentencing range. TEX. PENAL CODE § 12.32(a). The trial court certified that appellant had the right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal and new counsel was appointed.
Appellant's appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and that, therefore, the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See generally Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel's brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and supplying this Court with references to the record and legal authority. Id. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and that he is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
Appellant's counsel has informed us that he has delivered a copy of the motion to withdraw and Anders brief to appellant and informed him of his right to file a pro se response after obtaining access to the records. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Furthermore, counsel has certified that he has sent the form motion for pro se access to the records to appellant for his response, if any. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 322 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant has not filed any pro se response to his counsel's Anders brief and his deadline has expired.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether the appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (explaining that reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining that reviewing court need not address merits of each claim raised in Anders brief or pro se response after determining there are no arguable grounds for review); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155. An appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel's motion to withdraw. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a). Attorney, Allen C. Isbell, must immediately send the required notice and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other motions as moot.
Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411; TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Kelly, and Goodman. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).