Court Opinion

ID: 3108351
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 06:19:52.326376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:59.803469
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued March 11, 2014

                                    In The

                             Court of Appeals
                                   For The

                         First District of Texas
                          ————————————
                             NO. 01-13-00913-CR
                          ———————————
                        CARROLL LOUIS, Appellant
                                      V.
                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                 On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
                         Jefferson County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. 13-16077

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION

      A jury found appellant, Carroll Louis, guilty of the offense of aggravated

robbery and sentenced appellant to fifteen years’ confinement. See TEX. PENAL

CODE ANN. §§ 12.32, 29.03 (West 2011). Appellant timely filed a notice of

appeal.
      Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw,

along with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and 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 (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. 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 also informed us that he 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 pro se response.

      We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we

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

for review, and 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,

                                          2
300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine

whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,

826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (same).

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 at 827 & n.6.

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

motion to withdraw.1 Attorney Steven Greene must immediately send appellant

the required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).

                                   PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Sharp.

Do not publish.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

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