Charlie Rebel Martin v. State

Opinion

Opinion issued April 25, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-18-00444-CR ——————————— CHARLIE REBEL MARTIN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 355th District Court Hood County, Texas Trial Court Case No. CR12319

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Charlie Rebel Martin pleaded guilty to the offense of sexual assault of a child,

and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for seven years

with a $1,500.00 fine. The State subsequently moved to adjudicate and the trial court

adjudicated Martin guilty of the offense of sexual assault of a child and sentenced to him to 18 years’ imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department

of Criminal Justice. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.011(a)(2).

On appeal, Martin’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, 87 S. Ct.

1396 (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, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; 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, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

Counsel advised Martin of his right to access the record and provided him

with a copy of the record. Counsel further advised Martin of his right to file a pro se

response to the Anders brief. Martin did not file a pro se response to counsel’s

original 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, 87 S. Ct. at 1400

2 (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 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.1 Attorney Pamela A. Walker must immediately send Martin 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 Lloyd, Kelly, and Hightower. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

1 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