Court Opinion

ID: 9930546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 07:12:34.089843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:29.688780
License: Public Domain

AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed January 30, 2024

                                    S  In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-22-00583-CR

             QUINCEY DOMINIQUE WASHINGTON, Appellant
                               V.
                   THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

               On Appeal from the 196th Judicial District Court
                            Hunt County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. 33694CR

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                   Before Justices Goldstein, Garcia, and Miskel
                           Opinion by Justice Goldstein
      Appellant was indicted for the first-degree offense of aggravated robbery.

Washington pled guilty to the lesser included offense of robbery and the trial court,

following a sentencing hearing, assessed punishment at twelve years Texas

Department of Criminal Justice’s Institutional Division, with a deadly weapon

finding. Washington appealed, and his appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw

and a brief under Anders v. California in which she stated that after thorough review,

she has found no grounds for appeal with potential merit. 386 U.S. 738, 744–45

(1967). Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders by presenting
a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable

grounds for relief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App.

1991).

        When an appellate court receives an Anders brief asserting no arguable

grounds for appeal exist, we must determine that issue independently by conducting

our own review of the record. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing court, and

not appointed counsel, determines whether case is “frivolous” after full examination

of proceedings); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510–11 (quoting Anders). If we conclude,

after conducting an independent review, that “appellate counsel has exercised

professional diligence in assaying the record for error” and agree the appeal is

frivolous, we should grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s

judgment. Crowe v. State, 595 S.W.3d 317, 319 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, no pet.)

(quoting Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)).

        Washington presents three issues1 asserting the trial court did not err 1) in

sentencing Washington to twelve years or 2) making the deadly weapon findings

and 3) “other matters do not provide non-frivolous issues for appeal.”

         The brief before us meets the requirements of Anders. It presents a

professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there were no arguable

    1
      Counsel outlines the three issues as “Arguable Ground for Review.” Because we conclude counsel’s
issues are contentions that might arguably support the appeal, but which counsel has concluded are
nonmeritorious, these issues are appropriate for an Anders submission. See Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259,
285 (2000).
                                                  –2–
grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel

Op.] 1978). Appellant was provided a complete record and advised of his rights to

file a pro se response; he did not file a response. We also have reviewed the record

and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit, and we find nothing in

the record that might arguably support the appeal. We grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                          /Bonnie Lee Goldstein/
                                          BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN
                                          JUSTICE

Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
220583F.U05

                                        –3–
                                   S
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

QUINCEY DOMINIQUE                            On Appeal from the 196th Judicial
WASHINGTON, Appellant                        District Court, Hunt County, Texas
                                             Trial Court Cause No. 33694CR.
No. 05-22-00583-CR          V.               Opinion delivered by Justice
                                             Goldstein. 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.

      It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered this 30th day of January 2024.

                                       –4–