From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Owens v. State

STATE OF TEXAS IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
Feb 21, 2018
No. 10-17-00352-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 21, 2018)

Opinion

No. 10-17-00352-CR No. 10-17-00353-CR

02-21-2018

EARNEST J. OWENS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


From the 13th District Court Navarro County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. D35341-CR & D35328-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Earnest Owens entered a plea of not guilty to two offenses of possession of a controlled substance. The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed Owens on community supervision for five years and assessed a $500 fine for each offense. On May 19, 2017, the State filed an Application to Proceed to Final Adjudication. The State then filed an amended Application to Proceed to Final Adjudication on June 28, 2017. Owens pleaded true to the allegations in the State's Application to Proceed to Final Adjudication. The trial court found the allegations to be true, convicted Owens of the offenses of possession of a controlled substance, and assessed punishment at five years confinement and a $500 fine for each offense. The trial court suspended the imposition of the confinement portion of the sentence and placed Owens on community supervision for five years. We affirm.

Owens'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 Owens of his right to submit a brief on his own behalf. Owens 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 judgments.

Counsel's request that she be allowed to withdraw from representation of Owens is granted. Additionally, counsel must send Owens a copy of our decision, notify Owens 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 21, 2018
Do not publish
[CR25]


Summaries of

Owens v. State

STATE OF TEXAS IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
Feb 21, 2018
No. 10-17-00352-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 21, 2018)
Case details for

Owens v. State

Case Details

Full title:EARNEST J. OWENS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:STATE OF TEXAS IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

Date published: Feb 21, 2018

Citations

No. 10-17-00352-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 21, 2018)