Court Opinion

ID: 9966165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-06 09:09:56.609504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:38.429519
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued April 30, 2024

                                      In The

                               Court of Appeals
                                     For The

                          First District of Texas
                             ————————————
                              NO. 01-22-00744-CR
                            ———————————
                  QUINN ANTHONY NAVARRE, Appellant
                                        V.
                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 351st District Court
                            Harris County, Texas
                        Trial Court Case No. 1594324

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant, Quinn Anthony Navarre, pleaded guilty to the offense of violation

of a protective order and, in accordance with a plea bargain, the trial court placed

Navarre on six years of deferred adjudication community supervision. On May 23,

2022, the State filed its second amended motion to adjudicate guilt on grounds that
Navarre violated terms of his community supervision. On October 10, 2022, the trial

court signed a judgment adjudicating Navarre guilty of the offense and sentencing

him to four years in the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department

of Criminal Justice.

         On appeal, Navarre’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. 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 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.).

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

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

right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. Counsel sent Navarre the clerk’s

record and four volumes of the reporter’s record. Navarre filed a pro se response.

         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) (reviewing court determines whether appeal is wholly frivolous or if

arguable grounds for review exist); 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 Nicholas Mensch must immediately send Navarre 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 Kelly, Countiss, and Rivas-Molloy.

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