Opinion
NO. 01-12-00425-CRNO. 01-12-00426-CR
10-25-2012
CLARENCE WILLIAMS JONES, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 248th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1294145 & 1294146
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Clarence Williams Jones, pleaded guilty to two offenses of aggravated robbery, without an agreed recommendation from the State regarding punishment. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03 (West 2011). The trial court found appellant guilty of both offenses and assessed punishment at 15 years' confinement. The trial court certified that these are not plea bargain cases and that appellant has the right to appeal. Appellant timely filed notices of appeal.
Appellant's appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and therefore the appeals are without merit and are 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. See Anders, 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 that he 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, 154 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
Here, counsel's brief reflects that he delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and informed him of his right to examine the appellate records and to file responses. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant has not filed a pro se response.
We have independently reviewed the entire records in these appeals, and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the records, that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that therefore the appeals are frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (explaining that frivolity is determined by considering whether there are "arguable grounds" for review); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel— determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether the appeal is wholly frivolous); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155. An appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.
In each appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel's motion to withdraw. Attorney Douglas M. Durham must immediately send the notice required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).
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 Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-27.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Brown. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).