Court Opinion

ID: 3109188
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 06:35:12.987768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:44:51.268875
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued February 20, 2014

                                    In The
                             Court of Appeals
                                   For The
                         First District of Texas

                             NO. 01-13-00583-CR
                                  ____________

                   JOHN BRENTON DAIGRE, Appellant

                                       V.

                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                  On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
                         Jefferson County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. 09-07944

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

     Appellant, John Brenton Daigre, pleaded no contest to the offense of sexual

assault of a child, with an agreed recommendation from the State regarding

punishment.   Appellant entered an agreed recommendation that adjudication be

deferred and appellant was placed on community supervision for 10 years.
Following a hearing on State’s Petition for Revocation of Probated Sentence on

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

sentenced him to 18 years with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

      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 he has

thoroughly reviewed the record and that he 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 he 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 Douglas M. Barlow 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 Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Huddle.

Do not publish.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

                                           4