Court Opinion

ID: 2749253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-11-08 02:16:54.685584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:26:36.599066
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued November 4, 2014

                                       In The
                               Court of Appeals
                                      For The
                           First District of Texas

                               NO. 01-14-00342-CR
                                    ____________

                      TONY JAMES EDWARDS, Appellant

                                         V.

                        THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                     On Appeal from the 228th District Court
                             Harris County, Texas
                         Trial Court Cause No. 1189878

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant, Tony James Edwards, pled guilty the offenses of murder and

possession of a controlled substance. The trial court judge deferred adjudication on

the murder charge and appellant was placed on community supervision for 10 years.

This was to run concurrently with a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment for the
possession charge. Following a hearing on State’s Amended Motion to Adjudicate

Guilt on alleged violations of probation, the trial court revoked appellant’s

probation and sentenced him to 20 years’ imprisonment. Appellant here appeals

from the Judgment Adjudicating Guilt of April 21, 2014.

      Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw,

along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and

therefore 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, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that she has

thoroughly reviewed the record and that she 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.).

      Counsel has informed us that she has delivered a copy of the brief to

appellant and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a

response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

Appellant has not filed a response.

                                          2
      We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we

conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable

grounds for review, and that therefore 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)

(explaining that frivolity is determined by considering whether there are “arguable

grounds” for review); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist);

Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds

exist by reviewing entire record). An appellant may challenge a holding that there

are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in

the 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 Angela Cameron must immediately send the notice required

by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice with the

Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).

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
                                 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Massengale, Brown, and Huddle.

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

                                           4