Court Opinion

ID: 9365790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-25 07:10:54.535965+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:47.666053
License: Public Domain

AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed January 20, 2023

                                   S   In the
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-22-00131-CR

                   TYLON LADARRYL GREER, Appellant
                                 V.
                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

               On Appeal from the 354th Judicial District Court
                            Hunt County, Texas
                       Trial Court Cause No. 32082

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                    Before Justices Carlyle, Garcia, and Miskel
                            Opinion by Justice Carlyle
      Tylon Ladarryl Greer appeals the revocation of his community supervision

and adjudication of guilt for the offense of possession of methamphetamine in the

amount of more than one gram but less than four grams.

      Mr. Greer’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, supported by a brief in

which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and

applicable law and concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief

meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief

presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no
arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim.

App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining whether brief meets requirements of Anders).

Counsel certifies he provided Mr. Greer with a copy of the brief and the motion to

withdraw. We advised Mr. Greer by letter of his right to file a pro se response, but

he has not done so. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App.

2014) (explaining right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel).1

        We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178

S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in

Anders cases). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit, and we find

nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.

        We affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

                                                      /Cory L. Carlyle/
                                                      CORY L. CARLYLE
                                                      JUSTICE

Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
220131F.U05

    1
      Though counsel’s brief complies with Anders, the record is unclear as to whether counsel complied
with the requirements imposed by Kelly. Regardless, this Court’s letter properly informed Mr. Greer of his
rights, including his right to file a petition for discretionary review, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68, and thus
addressed any deficiencies in counsel’s correspondence. Under these circumstances, any failure by counsel
to comply with Kelly’s requirements is harmless.
                                                  –2–
                                   S
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

TYLON LADARRYL GREER,                        On Appeal from the 354th Judicial
Appellant                                    District Court, Hunt County, Texas
                                             Trial Court Cause No. 32082.
No. 05-22-00131-CR          V.               Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle.
                                             Justices Garcia and Miskel
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 participating.

    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered January 20, 2023

                                       –3–