From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Washington v. State

State of Texas in the Eleventh Court of Appeals
Jan 16, 2020
No. 11-19-00141-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 16, 2020)

Opinion

No. 11-19-00141-CR

01-16-2020

JOHN EDWARD WASHINGTON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


On Appeal from the 106th District Court Gaines County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 18-4903

MEMORANDUM OPINION

After a jury was selected, Appellant, John Edward Washington, pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance in the amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams and pleaded true to the State's enhancement allegation. The jury followed the trial court's instructions and found Appellant guilty of the charge, found the alleged enhancement true, and assessed punishment at confinement for sixty years. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed in this court a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, and a copy of both the clerk's record and the reporter's record. Counsel advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel's brief. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Appellant subsequently filed a response to counsel's Anders brief. We have reviewed Appellant's response. In addressing an Anders brief and a pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist.

We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

We grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

PER CURIAM January 16, 2020 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J. Willson, J., not participating.

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.


Summaries of

Washington v. State

State of Texas in the Eleventh Court of Appeals
Jan 16, 2020
No. 11-19-00141-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 16, 2020)
Case details for

Washington v. State

Case Details

Full title:JOHN EDWARD WASHINGTON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:State of Texas in the Eleventh Court of Appeals

Date published: Jan 16, 2020

Citations

No. 11-19-00141-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 16, 2020)