Albert Oum Ndjock v. the State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 7, 2024
Docket01-23-00441-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Albert Oum Ndjock v. the State of Texas (Albert Oum Ndjock v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Albert Oum Ndjock v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

Opinion issued November 7, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00441-CR ——————————— ALBERT OUM NDJOCK, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 458th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 21-DCR-096170

MEMORANDUM OPINION

After appellant, Albert Oum Ndjock, without an agreed punishment

recommendation from the State, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of sexual assault of a child,1 the trial court assessed his punishment at confinement for fifteen

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

2006, no pet.).

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

Anders brief and his motion to withdraw. Counsel also informed appellant of his

right to examine the appellate record and file a response to counsel’s Anders brief.

Further, counsel 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

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.011(a)(2), (c)(1), (f). 2 This Court also notified appellant that his appointed 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. 2 Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant filed a response

to his counsel’s Anders brief.

We have independently reviewed the entire record, 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 (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 David Ryan must immediately send

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). 3 Appellant’s appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of the 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 other pending motions as moot.

Julie Countiss Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Hightower and Countiss.

Do not publish.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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
In Re Schulman
252 S.W.3d 403 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Ex Parte Wilson
956 S.W.2d 25 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1997)
Bledsoe v. State
178 S.W.3d 824 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2005)
Mitchell v. State
193 S.W.3d 153 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Garner v. State
300 S.W.3d 763 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2009)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)
Kelly, Sylvester
436 S.W.3d 313 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Albert Oum Ndjock v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albert-oum-ndjock-v-the-state-of-texas-texapp-2024.