Opinion
06-23-00067-CR
11-30-2023
SCOTTY LYNN GRAMMER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do Not Publish
Date Submitted: November 21, 2023
On Appeal from the 102nd District Court Bowie County, Texas Trial Court No. 17F0259-102
Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CHARLES VAN CLEEF, JUSTICE
Following a hearing on the State's motion to revoke the suspension of his sentence, the trial court found one allegation against Scotty Lynn Grammer true, revoked his community supervision, and remanded Grammer to serve a ten-year, custodial sentence. Grammer appeals.
Grammer's appellate counsel filed a brief stating that he reviewed the record and found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the trial court proceedings. Since counsel provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets the requirements of Anders v. California. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743-44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812-13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.
On September 12, 2023, counsel mailed to Grammer a copy of the brief and the appellate record. Counsel informed Grammer of his rights to review the record and to file a pro se response. By order dated September 12, 2023, this Court notified Grammer that his pro se response to counsel's brief was due on or before October 12, 2023. By letter dated October 31, 2023, we notified Grammer that the case would be submitted on briefs on November 21, 2023. Grammer did not file a pro se response and did not request an extension of time in which to do so.
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record and have determined that no arguable issue supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial court's judgment. Id.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel's request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this 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. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see Tex. R. App. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see Tex. R. App. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see Tex. R. App. P. 68.4.