Court Opinion

ID: 9940781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-15 15:13:14.111614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:46.386049
License: Public Domain

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

                   No. 06-23-00127-CR

ZAVARION CAYMOND CHRISTOPHER SWAIN, Appellant

                            V.

           THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

          On Appeal from the 8th District Court
               Hopkins County, Texas
               Trial Court No. 1927572

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

            Pursuant to a plea agreement, Zavarion Caymond Christopher Swain pled guilty to

aggravated robbery, a first-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03. The trial court

withheld a finding of guilt and placed him on ten years’ deferred adjudication community

supervision. On March 16, 2023, the State filed a motion to proceed with adjudication of guilt,

alleging that Swain had violated several conditions of his community supervision. Swain pled

true to all but one of the State’s allegations against him.1 The trial court accepted Swain’s pleas

of true and proceeded to the sentencing phase. After hearing from witnesses for both sides, the

trial court sentenced Swain to twelve years’ confinement in prison. Swain appeals.

            Swain’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 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 October 27, 2023, counsel mailed to Swain copies of the brief, the appellate record,

and the motion to withdraw. Swain was informed of his rights to review the record and file a pro

1
    The State agreed to abandon that specific allegation.
                                                            2
se response. On December 14, 2023, the Court informed Swain that the case would be set for

submission on the briefs on January 4, 2024. We received neither a pro se response from Swain

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.2

                                                       Scott E. Stevens
                                                       Chief Justice

Date Submitted:            January 4, 2024
Date Decided:              February 15, 2024

Do Not Publish

2
 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