Court Opinion

ID: 3004631
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-25 06:13:25.089604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:46.276997
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued September 24, 2015

                                     In The

                              Court of Appeals
                                    For The

                         First District of Texas
                            ————————————
                              NO. 01-14-00584-CR
                           ———————————
                  MARCO ANTONIO MORENO, Appellant
                                       V.
                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 21st District Court
                         Washington County, Texas
                        Trial Court Case No. 16,198

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      A jury found appellant, Marco Antonio Moreno, guilty of the felony offense

of possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) weighing one gram or more but

less than four grams with intent to deliver in a drug-free zone. See TEX. HEALTH &

SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 481.102(3)(D) (West 2010), 481.112(c) (West 2010),
481.134(c) (West. Supp. 2014). The court sentenced appellant to thirty-three years’

imprisonment. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 481.102(6), 481.112(c),

481.134(c); TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.32 (West 2011). Appellant timely filed a

notice of appeal.

      Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal 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. See Anders, 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.).

      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 (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

                                          2
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.* Attorney Ariel Payan must immediately send appellant the required

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

6.5(c).

                                   PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Lloyd.

Do not publish.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

*
      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