From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Contreras v. State

Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas
Mar 11, 2021
NO. 01-19-00283-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 11, 2021)

Opinion

NO. 01-19-00283-CR

03-11-2021

JUAN CONTRERAS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


On Appeal from the 228th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1625893

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Juan Contreras, was found guilty by a jury of the offense of murder. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 19.02. After a punishment hearing, the jury sentenced appellant to 43 years' imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. We affirm.

On appeal, Contreras's appointed counsel 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 Contreras of his right to access the record and provided him with a form motion for access to the record. Counsel further advised Contreras of his right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. Contreras requested and was given access to the record, but he did not file 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, 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 David Lawrence Garza must immediately send Contreras 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 other 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 Justices Kelly, Goodman, and Hightower. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).


Summaries of

Contreras v. State

Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas
Mar 11, 2021
NO. 01-19-00283-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 11, 2021)
Case details for

Contreras v. State

Case Details

Full title:JUAN CONTRERAS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas

Date published: Mar 11, 2021

Citations

NO. 01-19-00283-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 11, 2021)