Opinion
No. 06-18-00033-CR
08-31-2018
LARRY LEE WRIGHT, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 102nd District Court Red River County, Texas
Trial Court No. CR02467 Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley MEMORANDUM OPINION
Larry Lee Wright pled guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child. Following a bench trial on punishment, Wright was sentenced to twenty-five years' incarceration.
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021 (West Supp. 2017).
Wright's appellate counsel filed a brief that outlined the procedural history of the case, provided a detailed summary of the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court proceedings, and stated that counsel found no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. 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. 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. Counsel provided Wright with a copy of the brief, the appellate record, and the motion to withdraw. Counsel also informed Wright of his right to review the record and file a pro se response. By letter dated June 28, 2018, this Court advised Wright that any pro se response was due on or before July 30, 2018. By letter dated August 9, 2018, this Court further advised Wright that this case had been set for submission on August 30, 2018. We received neither a pro se response from Wright nor a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response.
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the entire appellant 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).
In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous, we must either dismiss the appeal or affirm the trial court's judgment. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
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.
Bailey C. Moseley
Justice Date Submitted: August 30, 2018
Date Decided: August 31, 2018 Do Not Publish