Opinion
NO. 01-13-01054-CR
10-21-2014
JIMMY R. WILLIAMS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from 182nd District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1362277
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Jimmy R. Williams, pleaded guilty to the first-degree felony offense of aggravated assault — family member with serious bodily injury — with no agreed recommendation from the State regarding punishment. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(b)(1) (Vernon 2011). Following a punishment hearing, the trial court assessed appellant's punishment at 45 years of confinement. The trial court certified that this is not a plea-bargain case and that appellant has the right to appeal. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.
Appellant's appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and that, therefore, 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 the court with references to the record and legal authority. See id. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and that he 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 has informed us that he has delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and informed him of his right to file a response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Furthermore, a copy of the record has been sent to appellant for review. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 322 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant filed a pro se response, arguing that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel allegedly failed to cross- examine the complainant and failed to call any supporting witnesses during his punishment hearing. Appellant also argues that the complainant's affidavit fails to mention anything about multiple wounds and appellant denies causing the "additional wounds." Finally appellant argues that both the trial judge and appellant's trial attorney failed to review the complainant's medical records or psychological background prior to sentencing.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that therefore 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 the 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); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155. An appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the 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 Thomas Martin must immediately send the notice required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).
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 Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-27.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Higley, Bland, and Sharp. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).