Opinion
No. 06-16-00193-CR
05-09-2017
LEWIS HENRY TRAMMELL, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 71st District Court Harrison County, Texas
Trial Court No. 16-0178X Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Lewis Henry Trammell entered an open plea of guilty to the offense of evading arrest with a motor vehicle. The trial court found Trammell guilty of the offense and sentenced him to four years' imprisonment. Trammell appeals.
Trammell's attorney on appeal has filed a brief which states that he has reviewed the record and has found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised. The brief sets out the procedural history and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the trial proceedings. Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California, counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743-44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812-13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.
On December 30, 2016, counsel mailed to Trammell a copy of the brief, the appellate record, and the motion to withdraw. Trammell was informed of his right to review the record and file a pro se response, and he requested an extension of time in which to do so. This Court granted Trammell's request for an extension of time in which to file a pro se response and informed Trammell that any pro se response was due on or before March 1, 2017. Trammell did not file a pro se response.
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record, and we agree that no arguable issue supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel's request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire 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 (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
Ralph K. Burgess
Justice Date Submitted: April 11, 2017
Date Decided: May 9, 2017 Do Not Publish