Opinion
NO. 03-16-00526-CR
05-02-2017
Anthony Tucker, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 6 OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. C-1-CR-14-218049, HONORABLE BRANDY MEULLER, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Anthony Tucker was charged with Driving While Intoxicated. See Tex. Penal Code § 49.04. A jury convicted him of the charged offense. During a sentencing hearing before the trial court, the court found that appellant had previously been convicted of driving while intoxicated and enhanced the offense to a Class A misdemeanor. See id. § 12.21. The Court then assessed a probated sentence of 365 days in the county jail, probated for two years, and a probated fine of $2000.
Appellant's court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988). Appellant's counsel has represented to the Court that he provided copies of the motion and brief to appellant; advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record, file a pro se brief, and pursue discretionary review following the resolution of the appeal in this Court; and provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record along with the mailing address of this Court. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant subsequently filed a pro se brief.
We have independently reviewed the record and appellant's pro se brief and have found nothing that might arguably support the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of conviction.
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of his 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. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 68-79 (governing proceedings in Court of Criminal Appeals). Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the date that this Court overrules the last timely motion for rehearing filed. See id. R. 68.2. The petition must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. R. 68.3(a). If the petition is mistakenly filed with this Court, it will be forwarded to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. R. 68.3(b). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the rules of appellate procedure. See id. R. 68.4. Once this Court receives notice that a petition has been filed, the filings in this case will be forwarded to the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.7.
/s/_________
David Puryear, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Goodwin Affirmed Filed: May 2, 2017 Do Not Publish