From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sampy v. State

Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas
Nov 16, 2017
NO. 01-16-00222-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 16, 2017)

Opinion

NO. 01-16-00222-CR

11-16-2017

ANDREW DARNELL SAMPY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


On Appeal from the 209th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1331137

MEMORANDUM OPINION

After a bench trial, the trial court found appellant, Andrew Darnell Sampy, guilty of the felony offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child under six years of age and assessed his punishment at confinement for fifty years. The trial court certified that had the right to appeal. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021(a)(1)(B)(v), (f)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2016).

Appellant's appointed counsel on appeal has filed an amended motion to withdraw, along with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error, and the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Counsel's brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal authority. 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 indicates that she has thoroughly reviewed the record and 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, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

Counsel also has informed the Court that she delivered a copy of the brief, her motion to withdraw, and the appellate record to appellant. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel also informed appellant of his right to file a response to counsel's Anders brief and provided him a form motion to extend time to file a response. See Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319-20. Appellant has not filed a response to his counsel's Anders brief.

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal and conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155-56 (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We note that an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel's amended motion to withdraw. Attorney Cheri Duncan must immediately send appellant the required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.

Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Brown. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).


Summaries of

Sampy v. State

Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas
Nov 16, 2017
NO. 01-16-00222-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 16, 2017)
Case details for

Sampy v. State

Case Details

Full title:ANDREW DARNELL SAMPY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas

Date published: Nov 16, 2017

Citations

NO. 01-16-00222-CR (Tex. App. Nov. 16, 2017)