Court Opinion

ID: 9403435
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 06:10:02.594335+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:06.977845
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Opinion Filed June 13, 2023

                                     In The
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                              No. 05-22-00778-CR

                      ANTONIO ANTHONY, Appellant
                                  V.
                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

              On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1
                           Dallas County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. F21-60313

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                Before Justices Nowell, Goldstein, and Breedlove
                           Opinion by Justice Nowell
      A jury convicted Antonio Anthony of aggravated assault with a deadly

weapon. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief in which he

concluded the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit as well as a motion to

withdraw as appointed counsel.

      When an appellate court receives an Anders brief asserting no arguable

grounds for appeal exist, we must determine that issue independently by conducting

our own review of the record. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967)

(emphasizing court, and not appointed counsel, determines whether case is
“frivolous” after full examination of proceedings); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503,

510–11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (quoting Anders). If we conclude, after conducting

an independent review, that “appellate counsel has exercised professional diligence

in assaying the record for error” and agree the appeal is frivolous, we should grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. Crowe v. State,

595 S.W.3d 317, 319 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, no pet.) (quoting Meza v. State, 206

S.W.3d 684, 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)).

       The brief before us meets the requirements of Anders. It presents a

professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there were no arguable

grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel

Op.] 1978). Appellant was provided a complete record and advised of his rights to

file a pro se response; he did not file a response. We also have reviewed the record

and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit, and we find nothing in

the record that might arguably support the appeal. We grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                           /Erin A. Nowell//
                                           ERIN A. NOWELL
                                           JUSTICE

220778f.u05
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

                                         –2–
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

ANTONIO ANTHONY, Appellant                   On Appeal from the Criminal District
                                             Court No. 1, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-22-00778-CR          V.               Trial Court Cause No. F21-60313.
                                             Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 Justices Goldstein and Breedlove
                                             participating.

    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 13th day of June, 2023.

                                       –3–