Court Opinion

ID: 9375265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-27 08:09:37.279794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:57.284844
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued February 23, 2023

                                     In The
                              Court of Appeals
                                     For The
                         First District of Texas

                             NO. 01-22-00506-CR
                                   ____________

             JRAMARQUIS LAKEITH DEGRATE, Appellant

                                       V.

                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                   On Appeal from the 19th District Court
                        McLennan County, Texas1
                    Trial Court Cause No. 2018-685-C1

1
     The Texas Supreme Court transferred this appeal from the Court of Appeals from
     the Tenth District of Texas. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 73.001 (authorizing transfer of
     cases between courts of appeals).
                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant Jramarquis Lakeith Degrate pleaded guilty to the offense of

possession of a controlled substance weighing less than one gram. See TEX. HEALTH

& SAFETY CODE § 481.115(b). The trial court deferred an adjudication of guilt and

placed him under community supervision for three years. The State then filed a

motion to revoke deferred adjudication.

      At the hearing on the State’s motion to revoke deferred adjudication, Degrate

pleaded “true” to four of the allegations. The trial court found the allegations “true,”

adjudicated Degrate’s guilt, and assessed punishment at 10 months’ confinement with

a $300 fine. This appeal followed.

      On appeal, Degrate’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief

stating that the record presents no reversible error, that 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.

                                           2
at 744; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006,

no pet.).

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

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

right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. Degrate has not done either.

      We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal. After doing

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

grounds for review, and that the appeal is frivolous.2 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).3

      Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion

to withdraw. Attorney Denton B. Lessman must immediately send Degrate 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.

2
      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 824, 827 n.6. ((Tex. Crim. App. 2005)
3
      See also Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing
      court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe, 178
      S.W.3d at 826–27 (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines
      whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record).
                                             3
                                 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Kelly and Goodman.

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

                                           4