Court Opinion

ID: 9556975
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 08:08:15.09696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:47.754094
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued August 15, 2023

                                     In The

                              Court of Appeals
                                     For The

                          First District of Texas
                            ————————————
                              NO. 01-21-00449-CR
                           ———————————
               JOSEPH ANTHONYANDERSON, III, Appellant
                                        V.
                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                   On Appeal from the 344th District Court
                          Chambers County, Texas
                      Trial Court Case No. 19DCR0521

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant, Joseph Anthony Anderson, III, pleaded guilty to one count of the

offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child without an agreed recommendation

as to punishment. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.021. In conjunction with Anderson’s

plea of guilty to Count III of the indictment, the State agreed to abandon Counts I

and II. Although there was no agreed recommendation for sentencing, the State
recommended 25 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and Anderson

requested deferred adjudication. After a pre-sentencing hearing, the trial court

signed a judgment of conviction on August 12, 2021 and sentenced Anderson to 12

years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

      On appeal, Anderson’s appointed counsel 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 (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; 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; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

2006, no pet.). The State’s brief was originally due on March 24, 2022, but despite

notices that the brief was late, the State did not file a brief or waiver.

      Counsel advised Anderson of his right to access the record and provided him

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

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

to the record or 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

                                            2
for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (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 Dan P. Bradley must immediately send Anderson 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 Hightower, Rivas-Molloy, and Farris.

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).
                                           3