From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Clark v. State

Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas
Jun 15, 2017
NO. 01-16-00654-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 15, 2017)

Opinion

NO. 01-16-00654-CR

06-15-2017

DEMONTRE GREGORY CLARK, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


On Appeal from the 180th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1474305

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Demontre Gregory Clark pleaded guilty to the first-degree felony offense of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. This plea was without an agreed recommendation from the State regarding sentencing. The trial court sentenced Clark to 18 years' imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Clark 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. 386 U.S. 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 is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 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 advised Clark of his right to access to the record and provided him with a form motion for access to the record. Counsel further advised Clark of his right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. Appellant requested and was provided access to the record and he filed a pro se response.

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, 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 Michael A. McEnrue 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). 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).

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Lloyd. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).


Summaries of

Clark v. State

Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas
Jun 15, 2017
NO. 01-16-00654-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 15, 2017)
Case details for

Clark v. State

Case Details

Full title:DEMONTRE GREGORY CLARK, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas

Date published: Jun 15, 2017

Citations

NO. 01-16-00654-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 15, 2017)