Opinion issued August 13, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-18-00452-CR

———————————

YANCY BOWEN LACROIX, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1534672D

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Yancy Bowen Lacroix pleaded guilty without an agreed recommendation as 

to punishment to the state-jail-felony offense of possession of a controlled substance 

of less than one gram. The trial court sentenced Lacroix to 12 months in the State 
2

Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. See TEX. HEALTH &

SAFETY CODE § 481.115(a), (b).

On appeal, Lacroix’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, along 

with a brief, stating that the record presents no reversible error and 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 us with references to the record and legal 

authority. 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; 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 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 advised Lacroix of his right to access the record and provided him 

with a form motion for access to the record. Counsel further advised Lacroix of his 

right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. Lacroix did not request access to 

the record and did not file a pro se response to counsel’s brief.

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we 

conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds 

for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 
3

(emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full 

examination of proceedings, whether 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) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court 

determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We note that 

an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal 

by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas 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.1 Attorney William R. Biggs must immediately send Lacroix the required 

notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P.

6.5(c). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Lloyd, Kelly, and Hightower.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

 

1 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 Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).