Opinion
07-24-00026-CR
06-28-2024
KENDRICK KING, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
Do not publish
On Appeal from the 367th District Court Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. F19-3441-158, Honorable Brent Hill, Presiding
This appeal was transferred to this Court from the Second Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket equalization order of the Supreme Court of Texas. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 73.001.
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Judy C. Parker Justice.
Appellant, Kendrick King, appeals from the trial court's judgment finding him guilty of three counts of injury to a child and sentencing him to a twenty-three-year term of incarceration. Appellant's court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief. We grant counsel's motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
In support of her motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that she has conducted a conscientious examination of the record and, in her opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under the controlling authorities, the record presents no reversible error. In a letter to Appellant, counsel notified him of her motion to withdraw; provided him with a copy of the motion, Anders brief, and a motion to access the appellate record; and informed him of his right to file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying appointed counsel's obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief). By letter, this Court also advised Appellant of his right to file a pro se response to counsel's Anders brief. Appellant has filed a response. The State has not filed a brief.
By her Anders brief, counsel discusses areas in the record where reversible error may have occurred but concludes that the appeal is frivolous. We have independently examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal, but we have found no such issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Following our careful review of the appellate record and counsel's brief, we conclude that there are no grounds for appellate review that would result in reversal of Appellant's conviction or sentence.
Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court's judgment.
Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of Appellant's right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 48.4. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel's motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33.