Court Opinion

ID: 9881819
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-04 07:46:54.388492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:12.433616
License: Public Domain

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

                   No. 06-23-00059-CR

      CASEY TOWNSHEND COLLIER, Appellant

                            V.

           THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

         On Appeal from the 114th District Court
                 Smith County, Texas
             Trial Court No. 114-1476-18

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

           On December 13, 2018, Casey Townshend Collier, pursuant to a plea agreement, pled

guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.1 At the sentencing hearing on January 10,

2019, Collier was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of six

years.2 In August 2022, the State moved to adjudicate Collier and revoke his community

supervision. The State alleged in its motion, among other things, that Collier failed to provide

urinalysis samples as required by the court’s community supervision terms and conditions and

that Collier committed a new offense by possessing methamphetamine.3 After an evidentiary

hearing, the trial court found six of the allegations true and granted the State’s motion. Collier

was sentenced to fifteen years’ incarceration.

           Collier’s appellate counsel filed a brief stating that he 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 were 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.

1
    See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02 (Supp.).
2
 Originally appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme
Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. We are unaware of any
conflict between precedent of the Twelfth Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 41.3.
3
    See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115 (Supp.).
                                                         2
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.

       By letter of June 30, 2023, counsel provided Collier with the motion to withdraw and

appellate brief and informed Collier of his rights to review the record and file a pro se response.

Counsel also provided Collier with a pro se motion for access to the appellate record. On the

same date, this Court notified Collier that his request for access to the record was due on July 17,

2023. On September 7, 2023, this Court notified Collier that the case would be submitted to the

Court on September 28, 2023. Collier did not request a copy of the appellate record or file a pro

se 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.

                                                 3
         We affirm the trial court’s judgment.4

                                                            Jeff Rambin
                                                            Justice

Date Submitted:            September 28, 2023
Date Decided:              September 29, 2023

Do Not Publish

4
 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.
                                                           4