Court Opinion

ID: 9752477
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 18:09:22.393245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:45:20.949230
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued August 22, 2023

                                     In The

                              Court of Appeals
                                     For The

                          First District of Texas
                            ————————————
                              NO. 01-22-00784-CR
                           ———————————
                 THOMAS WAYNE VAN SCYOC, Appellant
                                        V.
                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                   On Appeal from the 277th District Court
                         Williamson County, Texas
                     Trial Court Case No. 21-0811-K277

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant, Thomas Wayne Van Scyoc, pleaded guilty to the offense of

aggravated sexual assault of a child. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.021(b). After a

pre-sentence investigation hearing, the trial court signed a judgment of conviction
for aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced appellant to 40 years in the

Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

      On appeal, appellant’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. 386 U.S. 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.). The State’s brief was originally due on March 24, 2022, but

despite notices that the brief was late, the State did not file a brief or waiver.

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

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

his right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. Appellant did not request

access to the record. Appellant filed a letter which we construe to be his pro se

response to counsel’s brief.

      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) (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.1 Attorney Dal Ruggles 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). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

                                   PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Hightower and Countiss.

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