Opinion
NO. 01-11-00353-CR
12-08-2011
JERMARLON NAVERIS BROOKS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 263rd Judicial District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1281419
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found appellant, Jermarlon Naveris Brooks, guilty of the offense of evading arrest in a motor vehicle and assessed his punishment at confinement for eleven years.
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN § 38.04 (b)(1)(B) (Vernon 2010).
Appellant's counsel on appeal has filed a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 368 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and detailing why there are no arguable grounds for reversal. Id.; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). The brief also reflects that counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
When this Court receives an Anders brief from a defendant's court-appointed appellant counsel, we conduct a review of the entire record to determine whether the appeal is frivolous, i.e., whether it presents any arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, S. Ct. at 1400; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. An appeal is frivolous when it does not present any argument that could "conceivably persuade the court." In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In conducting our review, we consider the appellant's pro se response, if any, to his counsel's Anders brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Appellant did not file a pro se response with this Court. Having reviewed the record and counsel's brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit and that there is no reversible error. See id.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We grant appellate counsel's motion to withdraw.See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.2d 770, 771-72 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (per curiam).
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 Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Downs v. State, 137 S.W.d 837, 842 n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd).
--------
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Sharp, and Brown. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).