Alphonse Laforet, Jr. v. State

Opinion

Opinion issued December 17, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-19-00553-CR ——————————— ALPHONSE LAFORET, JR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 212th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 17-CR-1501

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found Alphonse Laforet, Jr. guilty of murder with a deadly weapon.

TEX. PENAL CODE § 19.02. He pleaded true to an enhancement, and after a

punishment hearing, the jury recommended a 25-year sentence. On June 25, 2019,

the trial court sentenced Laforet to 25 years in prison. On appeal, Laforet’s appointed counsel 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, 744 (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. 386 U.S. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim.

App. [Panel Op.] 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 advised Laforet of his right to access the record and provided him

with a form motion for access to the record. Counsel further advised Laforet of his

right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. Laforet requested access to the

record and filed a pro se response to counsel’s brief.

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 (emphasizing

that 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

2 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 an

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.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw.* Attorney Calvin D. Parks must immediately send Laforet 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.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Kelly, and Landau. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

* 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