Opinion
01-23-00238-CR
05-09-2024
CALEB SETH BARROW, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do not publish. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 344th District Court Chambers County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 20DCR0041
Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Countiss, and Rivas-Molloy.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Caleb Seth Barrow pleaded guilty in 2021 to engaging in organized criminal activity. See Tex. Penal Code § 71.02(a)(5). The trial court deferred adjudication and placed him on community supervision for eight years. In August 2022, the State moved to revoke community supervision, alleging that Barrow had violated its terms. After a hearing in March 2023, the trial court revoked community supervision, adjudicated Barrow guilty, and sentenced him to 26 years' imprisonment.
On appeal, Barrow's appointed counsel 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, 744 (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. 386 U.S. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and 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.).
Counsel advised Barrow of his right to access the record and provided him with a form motion for access to the record. Counsel further advised Barrow of his right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. Barrow requested access to the record and filed a pro se response to counsel's brief.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds for review, and 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 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 Dan P. Bradley must immediately send Barrow the required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any pending 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. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).