From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Joshua v. State

STATE OF TEXAS IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
Feb 7, 2018
No. 10-17-00034-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 7, 2018)

Opinion

No. 10-17-00034-CR

02-07-2018

MARCO DANE JOSHUA, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


From the 85th District Court Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court No. 15-05246-CRF-85

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Marco Joshua entered a plea of guilty to the offense of possession of a controlled substance. The trial court assessed punishment at two years confinement and a $500 fine. The trial court suspended imposition of the confinement portion of the sentence and placed Joshua on community supervision for four years. The State filed a motion to revoke Joshua's community supervision, and the trial court held a hearing on the motion. Joshua pleaded true to violating Condition 1 of his community supervision. The trial court revoked Joshua's community supervision and sentenced Joshua to two years confinement. We affirm.

Joshua's appointed counsel filed an Anders brief asserting that she has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in her opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel informed Joshua of his right to submit a brief on his own behalf. Joshua did not file a brief. Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error, and we conclude that counsel performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at; accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is "wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10 (1988). After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we determine the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Counsel's request that she be allowed to withdraw from representation of Joshua is granted. Additionally, counsel must send Joshua a copy of our decision, notify Joshua of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter certifying counsel's compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4. TEX.R.APP.P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.

AL SCOGGINS

Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins
Affirmed; motion granted
Opinion delivered and filed February 7, 2018
Do not publish
[CR25]


Summaries of

Joshua v. State

STATE OF TEXAS IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
Feb 7, 2018
No. 10-17-00034-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 7, 2018)
Case details for

Joshua v. State

Case Details

Full title:MARCO DANE JOSHUA, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:STATE OF TEXAS IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

Date published: Feb 7, 2018

Citations

No. 10-17-00034-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 7, 2018)