Opinion
NO. 01-14-00188-CR
08-27-2015
DEVEON ANTOINE, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 177th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1326805
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Deveon Antoine pleaded guilty, without an agreed recommendation from the State, to the first-degree felony offense of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03 (West 2011 & Supp. 2014). The trial court signed an order of deferred adjudication and placed appellant on community supervision for a period of five years. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12 § 3(a) (West 2006 & Supp. 2013).
The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke appellant's community supervision. Appellant pleaded true to the alleged violations of his community supervision. After a hearing, the trial court found the allegations true, adjudicated appellant guilty of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, and sentenced him to eight years' confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.
Appellant's appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).
Counsel's brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal authority. Id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; 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 the sole issue which the trial court permitted appellant to appeal is without merit, and that appellant waived his right to appeal any other issues. SeeAnders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
Counsel has also informed us that he delivered a copy of the appellate record and the brief to appellant and informed him of his right to file a response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant has not filed a pro se response.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we conclude that the only issue appellant is authorized to appeal is without merit, that appellant waived his right to appeal any other issues, and that the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We note that 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.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel's motion to withdraw. Attorney Bob Wicoff must immediately send appellant the required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).
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. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). --------
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Huddle, and Lloyd. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).