Court Opinion

ID: 9408279
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-12 08:08:37.129984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:43.074101
License: Public Domain

In the
              Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                   No. 06-22-00159-CR

            VON ERIC WALTON, Appellant

                            V.

           THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

         On Appeal from the 123rd District Court
                 Panola County, Texas
             Trial Court No. 2017-C-0131

      Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
      Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens
                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

       In 2018, Von Eric Walton pled guilty to possessing four or more but less than 200 grams

of methamphetamine, a second-degree felony. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(d)

(Supp.). Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement with the State, the trial court found Walton guilty

of the offense but placed him on community supervision for eight years. In 2022, the State

moved to revoke Walton’s community supervision on the grounds that he violated its terms by

(1) failing to complete a drug-offender education program and (2) failing to report each month

from March 2021 through August 2022. After Walton pled “true” to the State’s allegations, the

trial court sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. Walton appeals.

       Walton’s attorney filed a brief stating that she reviewed the record and found no

genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural

history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court

proceedings. Since counsel provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why

there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets the requirements of Anders

v. California. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d

403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10

(Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]

1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.

       On April 3, 2023, counsel mailed to Walton copies of the brief, the motion to withdraw,

and a pro se motion for access to the appellate record lacking only Walton’s signature. Counsel

also informed Walton of his rights to review the record and file a pro se response. On April 19,

this Court granted Walton’s motion for pro se access to the record, confirmed that Walton had
                                                2
received a copy of the record, and informed Walton that any pro se response was due on or

before June 5. On June 15, this Court further informed Walton that the case would be set for

submission on the briefs on July 6. We received neither a pro se response from Walton nor a

motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response.

         We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous.                        We have independently

reviewed the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue

supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In

the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial

court’s judgment. Id.

         We affirm the judgment of the trial court.1

                                                       Scott E. Stevens
                                                       Chief Justice
Date Submitted:            July 6, 2023
Date Decided:              July 10, 2023

Do Not Publish

1
 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s
request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute
counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition
for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the
date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX.
R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3,
and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R.
APP. P. 68.4.
                                                           3