Opinion
NO. 01-09-01155-CR
03-29-2012
LAQUINTA D. JOSEPH, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 208th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1172327
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Laquinta D. Joseph, pleaded guilty to the offense of murder, without an agreed recommendation from the State as to punishment. SeeTEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02 (West 2011).Appellant and the State agreed, however, that appellant's punishment would not exceed twenty-five years' confinement. After a presentence investigation, the trial court assessed punishment at twenty-five years' confinement. The trial court certified that this is a plea bargain case but that appellant has been given permission to appeal. Appellant timely appealed.
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 appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).
An attorney has an ethical obligation to refuse to prosecute a frivolous appeal. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). If an appointed attorney finds a case to be wholly frivolous, her obligation to her client is to seek leave to withdraw. Id. Counsel's obligation to the appellate court is to assure it, through an Anders brief, that, after a complete review of the record, the request to withdraw is well-founded. Id. If we agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous, we will grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court's judgment. See Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). If we conclude that arguable grounds for appeal exist, however, we will grant the motion to withdraw, abate the case, and remand it to the trial court to appoint new counsel to file a brief on the merits. See Bledsoev. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Here, the record reflects that counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and informed herof her right to examine the appellate record andto file a response. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408. More than 30 days have passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se response.
Counsel's brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record. 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 supplies us with references to the record and provides us with citation to legal authorities. Counsel indicates that she has thoroughly reviewed the record and that she 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.).
We have independently reviewed the entire record, and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 767 (explaining that frivolity is determined by considering whether there are "arguable grounds" for review); Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-27 (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. Although we may issue an opinion explaining why the appeal lacks arguable merit, we are not required to do so. See Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 767. 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 827 & n.6.
We affirm the trial court's judgment and grant counsel's motion to withdraw.Attorney,Patricia Segura, 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 she may, on her own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.Crim.App.2005).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Brown. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).