Court Opinion

ID: 9838342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-06 06:10:02.641254+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:57.616990
License: Public Domain

Affirm and Opinion Filed August 31, 2023

                                       In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-22-01096-CR

                      JASON EDWARD PENA, Appellant
                                   V.
                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
                          McLennan County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. 2020-0945-CR1

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
               Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Reichek, and Miskel
                            Opinion by Justice Miskel
      Jason Edward Pena appeals his conviction for misdemeanor theft, for which

the trial court assessed a twelve-month sentence and a $2,000 fine. See TEX. PENAL

CODE ANN. § 31.03(e)(3). We affirm.

                          I.     WE HAVE JURISDICTION
      The record reflects that Pena and his trial counsel signed a boilerplate form

waiving Pena’s right to appeal. However, on the same form, the trial court certified

that Pena had the right to appeal, creating an apparent conflict. Pena did not enter a

plea agreement with the State, and there was no record of any admonition by the trial
court that Pena would be waiving his right to appeal. Just the opposite, Pena stated

on the record that he wanted to appeal, and the trial court did not disabuse him of the

notion that he was permitted to do so. And the State has not argued that the waiver

deprives Pena of the right to appeal.

      On similar facts, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that a certification

granting the right to appeal controlled over an inadvertent waiver of the right to

appeal. See Thomas v. State, 408 S.W.3d 877, 887 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); see also

Willis v. State, 121 S.W.3d 400, 401–03 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). In line with

Thomas, we conclude we have jurisdiction over this appeal despite the apparently

inadvertent waiver. See Burkley v. State, Nos. 05-21-00827-CR, 05-21-00828-CR,

2023 WL 2568923, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 20, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not

designated for publication).

                         II.    THE APPEAL IS FRIVOLOUS
      Appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief under Anders v.

California in which he stated that after thorough review, he has found no grounds

for appeal with potential merit. 386 U.S. 738, 744–45 (1967). Counsel’s brief and

motion meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of

the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See Stafford

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

      In compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel (1) notified Pena of his motion to

withdraw; (2) provided him with copies of the motion, the brief, and the record; (3)

                                         –2–
informed him of his right to file a pro se response; and (4) informed him of his right

to seek discretionary review should this court hold the appeal frivolous. See 436

S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court afforded Pena the opportunity

to file a response, but he did not do so.

      After appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on the ground that an

appeal is frivolous, we are obligated to undertake an independent examination of the

record to determine whether there is any arguable ground that may be raised. See

Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988).

      After review, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find

nothing in the record that might arguably support an appeal. We grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment.

221096f.u05                                   /Emily Miskel/
Do not publish.                               EMILY MISKEL
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).                      JUSTICE

                                            –3–
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

JASON EDWARD PENA, Appellant                 On Appeal from the County Court at
                                             Law No 1, McLennan County, Texas
No. 05-22-01096-CR          V.               Trial Court Cause No. 2020-0945-
                                             CR1.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 Opinion delivered by Justice Miskel.
                                             Justices Partida-Kipness and Reichek
                                             participating.

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

Judgment entered this 31st day of August, 2023.

                                       –4–