Court Opinion

ID: 9410728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-24 07:07:51.315483+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:00.012970
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued July 20, 2023

                                       In The

                               Court of Appeals
                                      For The

                           First District of Texas
                             ————————————
                               NO. 01-22-00634-CR
                            ———————————
               JEFFERSON LAYUG BLAKEMORE, Appellant
                                         V.
                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 228th District Court
                            Harris County, Texas
                        Trial Court Case No. 1711787

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      The trial court found appellant, Jefferson Layug Blakemore, guilty of the

felony offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child1 and assessed his punishment

at confinement for thirty years. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.

1
      See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.02(b), (h).
      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 (1967).

      Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional

evaluation of the record and supplying the Court with references to the record and

legal authority. See id. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that she has thoroughly reviewed the record

and is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386

U.S. at 744; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

2006, no pet.).

      Counsel has informed the Court that she provided appellant with a copy of the

brief, the motion to withdraw, and the appellate record. Counsel has also informed

appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a response to counsel’s

Anders brief, and she provided appellant with a form motion to access the appellate

record.2 See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). On February 27, 2023,

2
      This Court also notified appellant that counsel had filed an Anders brief and a
      motion to withdraw and informed appellant that he had a right to examine the
      appellate record and file a response to his counsel’s Anders brief. And this Court
      provided appellant with a form motion to access the appellate record. See Kelly v.
      State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252
      S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

                                           2
appellant filed a letter, which we construe as a pro se response to his counsel’s

Anders brief.

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

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

for review, and the appeals is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing

reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of

proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 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 (reviewing court determines

whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We note that appellant

may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for an 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.

                                     Conclusion

      We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant appellant’s appointed

counsel’s motion to withdraw.3 Attorney Daucie Schindler must immediately send

3
      Appellant’s appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of
      this appeal and that appellant 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
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). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

                                               Julie Countiss
                                               Justice

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Countiss.

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

                                           4