Opinion
NO. 03-14-00655-CR
02-11-2016
Nathaniel Frazier, Jr. AKA Nathaniel J. Frazier, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 391ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. D-13-0958-SA, HONORABLE THOMAS J. GOSSETT, JUDGE PRESIDINGMEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant was indicted for assault-family violence, a third- degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code § 22.01(b)(2)(B). At trial, the jury heard evidence that appellant and Sandra Salinas were engaged in an intimate dating relationship, that on September 2, 2013, they argued, and that appellant struck Salinas, threw her to the ground, and choked her, causing her to be unable to breathe. At the conclusion of the evidence, the jury found appellant guilty of assault of a household member. At the conclusion of the punishment phase of the trial, the trial court found the enhancement paragraph contained in the indictment to be true and assessed punishment at eighteen years in prison.
Appellant's court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988). Appellant's counsel has represented to the Court that he provided copies of the motion and brief to appellant; advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record, file a pro se brief, and pursue discretionary review following the resolution of the appeal in this Court; and provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record along with the mailing address of this Court. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Taylor v. Texas Dep't of Protective & Regulatory Svcs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 646-47 n.4 Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied). Appellant requested and received the appellate record and filed a pro se brief.
We have independently reviewed the record and appellant's pro se brief and have found nothing that might arguably support the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of conviction.
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of his case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 68-79 (governing proceedings in Court of Criminal Appeals). Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the date that this Court overrules the last timely motion for rehearing filed. See id. R. 68.2. The petition must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. R. 68.3(a). If the petition is mistakenly filed with this Court, it will be forwarded to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. R. 68.3(b). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the rules of appellate procedure. See id. R. 68.4. Once this Court receives notice that a petition has been filed, the filings in this case cause will be forwarded to the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.7. --------
/s/_________
David Puryear, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Bourland Affirmed Filed: February 11, 2016 Do Not Publish