Opinion
No. 06-11-00133-CR
01-31-2012
JEFFREY CHARLES GREEN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law
Harrison County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2010-0083
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jeffrey Charles Green appeals from his conviction for burglary of a vehicle. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.04 (West 2011). Green's attorney on appeal has filed a brief that discusses the record and reviews the proceedings in detail, providing possible issues but explaining why they cannot succeed. Counsel has thus provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. This meets the requirements of law. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
Counsel mailed a copy of the brief and a letter to Green September 19, 2011, informing Green of his right to file a pro se response and his right to review the record of the trial proceedings. Green asked this Court twice to extend his brief-filing deadline, and extensions were granted each time. Green's brief was due to be filed in this Court December 21, 2011. As of this date, no brief has been filed and no further request for extension has been made. Counsel has also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.
In granting Green's second request for extension, we advised that no further extensions would be granted.
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the clerk's and reporter's records and find no genuinely arguable issue. See Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605, 623 (2005). We, therefore, agree with counsel's assessment that no arguable issues support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Since we agree 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. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or appellant must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or for en banc reconsideration was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3 (amended by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Misc. Docket No. 11-104, effective Sept. 1, 2011). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
--------
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Do Not Publish