Opinion
04-20-00542-CR
01-19-2022
Lavelle SIMPSON, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Do not publish
From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2018CR10236 Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding
Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
AFFIRMED
Lavelle Simpson was indicted with two felony offenses. In the underlying cause, Cause No. 2018CR10236, he was indicted with evading arrest and detention, second offense (or habitual). In Cause No. 2018CR10237, he was indicted, as a habitual offender, with possession of cocaine in an amount of one gram or more but less than four grams. In Cause No. 2018CR10238, he was indicted as a repeat offender of being a felon in possession of a firearm. In each cause, he filed pretrial motions to suppress and motions to quash, which were denied by the trial court. He then entered into a plea-bargain agreement. In Cause No. 2018CR10236, he pled guilty to evading detention and arrest, and pled true to a repeater enhancement. In Cause No. 2018CR10237, he pled guilty to possessing cocaine in an amount of one gram or more but less than four grams, and pled true to a repeater enhancement. Pursuant to the plea-bargain agreement, Cause No. 2018CR10238 was taken into consideration at sentencing. In accordance with the plea-bargain agreement, Simpson was sentenced in Cause No. 2018CR10236 and Cause No. 2018CR10237 to eight years of imprisonment and a fine of $2,000.00, with the sentences to run concurrently. He then appealed both judgments in Cause No. 2018CR10236 and Cause No. 2018CR10237.
Simpson's court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief and motion to withdraw in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). With citations to the record and legal authority, counsel's brief explains why no arguable points of error exist for review and concludes that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See id. at 744-45; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation showing why there is no basis to advance an appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45; High, 573 S.W.2d at 812-13. Counsel states that appellant was provided with a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw, and was further informed of his right to review the record and file his own brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Additionally, counsel advised appellant that if he wished to review the record, he must file a motion in this court and enclosed a form motion for that purpose. See id. Simpson did not file such a motion and did not file a pro se brief.
We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Furthermore, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the later of (1) the date of this opinion; or (2) the date the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4.