Court Opinion

ID: 3103647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 05:30:03.288021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:44:35.968452
License: Public Domain

NUMBER
13-10-00168-CR
 
                                        COURT OF APPEALS
 
                     THIRTEENTH
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
 
                         CORPUS
CHRISTI
- EDINBURG
                                                                     

 
STEVEN DWAYNE HARTMAN,                                  Appellant,
 
v.
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                   
Appellee.
                                                                     

 
On appeal from the 284th
District Court
of Montgomery County,
Texas.
                                                              
       
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION
 
                      Before
Justices Benavides, Vela and Perkes
                      Memorandum
Opinion by Justice Benavides
 
Appellant,
Steven Dwayne Hartman, was convicted of sexual assault of a child and
aggravated sexual assault. See Tex.
Pen. Code Ann. ' 22.011(a)(2); 22.021(1)(B) (West 2003).
 He was sentenced to fourteen years and nineteen years= imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal JusticeCInstitutional Division (ATDCJ-ID@), respectively.
 
Hartman=s appellate counsel, concluding that "there are no arguable
grounds to be advanced on appeal," filed an Anders brief in which
he reviewed the merits, or lack thereof, of the appeal.  We affirm.
                                                                 I. 
Discussion
Pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant=s court‑appointed appellate counsel has filed a
brief with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds
or error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  Although counsel=s brief does not advance any arguable grounds of error,
it does present a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there
are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal.  See In re Schulman,
252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (AIn
Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance >arguable= points of error if counsel finds
none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history
and set out pertinent legal authorities.@) (citing Hawkins v. State, 112
S.W.3d 340, 343–44 (Tex.
App.–Corpus Christi 2003,
no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991).  

In
compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App.
[Panel Op.] 1978), appellant's counsel has carefully discussed why, under
controlling authority, there are no errors in the trial court's judgment. 
Counsel has informed this Court that he has:  (1) examined the record and found
no arguable grounds to advance on appeal; (2) served a copy of the brief and
counsel=s motion to withdraw on appellant; and
(3) informed appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro se
response within thirty days.[1] 
See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see
also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23.   
                                                        II.  Independent Review
Upon
receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous.  Penson v.
Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988).  We have reviewed the entire record and counsel's
brief, and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal.  See
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (ADue to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating
in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed
the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the
requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.@); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.  Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
                                                       III.  Motion to Withdraw
In
accordance with Anders, appellant=s attorney has asked this Court for permission
to withdraw as counsel for appellant.  See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744;
see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State,
903 S.W.2d 776, 779-80 (Tex. App.–Dallas
1995, no pet.) (noting that A[i]f an attorney believes the appeal
is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant.  To withdraw
from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw
accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is
frivolous.@) (citations omitted)).  We grant
counsel=s motion to withdraw.  Within five
days of the date of this Court=s opinion, counsel is ordered to send
a copy of the opinion and judgment to appellant and to advise appellant of his
right to file a petition for discretionary review.[2]
 See Tex. R. App. P. 48.4.
 
 
________________________
GINA
M. BENAVIDES,
Justice
 
Do not publish.
Tex. R. App.
P.47.2 (b).
 
Delivered and filed the
7th day of July, 2011. 
 

[1] The Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals has held that Athe pro se response need not comply with the rules of
appellate procedure in order to be considered.  Rather, the response should
identify for the court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the
court should consider in deciding whether the case presents any meritorious issues.@  In re Schulman,
252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (quoting Wilson v. State,
955 S.W.2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App. –Waco 1997, no pet.)).

[2] No substitute
counsel will be appointed.  Should appellant wish 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 must be filed
within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely
motion for rehearing that was overruled by this Court.  See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2.  Any petition for
discretionary review must be filed with this Court, after which it will be
forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.  See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3, 68.7.  Any
petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule
68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.  See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4.