Opinion
11-23-00260-CR
07-25-2024
JAMES EARL MILES, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 70th District Court Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. A-22-0982-CR
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
W. BRUCE WILLIAMS JUSTICE
The jury convicted Appellant, James Earl Miles, of the third-degree felony offense of failure to comply with sex offender registration requirements. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 62.102(b)(2) (West 2018); 62.051(a), (c)(7) (West Supp. 2023). The evidence presented at the guilt/innocence phase of trial included testimony from the registration officer who discovered unreported social media accounts that were associated with Appellant. This discovery occurred after the officer's first meeting with Appellant, wherein she explained the registration requirements and Appellant indicated that he understood. The jury found Appellant guilty of the offense. Appellant pled true to an enhancement paragraph-aggravated assault with a deadly weapon-which enhanced his punishment range to that of a second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(a) (West 2019). The jury assessed his punishment at imprisonment for thirteen years in the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and the trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly.
Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed in this court a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of both the clerk's record and the reporter's record. Counsel advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel's brief. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Appellant subsequently filed a response to counsel's Anders brief. We have reviewed Appellant's response. In addressing an Anders brief and a pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. We grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.