From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sloan v. State

Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas
Feb 7, 2019
NO. 01-18-00142-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 7, 2019)

Opinion

NO. 01-18-00142-CR

02-07-2019

THOMAS KEITH SLOAN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


On Appeal from the 177th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1517822

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Thomas Keith Sloan pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment in the Institutional Division of Texas Department of Criminal Justice. On appeal, Sloan's appointed counsel has filed a 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 advised Sloan of his right to access the record and provided him with a form motion for access to the record. Counsel further advised Sloan of his right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. Sloan did not request access to the record and did not file a pro se response.

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we 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 (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 motion to withdraw. Attorney Cheri Duncan must immediately send Sloan 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 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 Keyes, Higley, and Hightower.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).


Summaries of

Sloan v. State

Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas
Feb 7, 2019
NO. 01-18-00142-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 7, 2019)
Case details for

Sloan v. State

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS KEITH SLOAN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas

Date published: Feb 7, 2019

Citations

NO. 01-18-00142-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 7, 2019)