Crystal Keimoni Daniel v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Court of Appeals

Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-24-00154-CR

Crystal Keimoni Daniel,

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas,

Appellee

On appeal from the

278th District Court of Walker County, Texas Judge Hal R. Ridley, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 31355

JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Crystal Keimoni Daniel was convicted of Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon, see TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.02(a)(2), and sentenced to 15 years in prison. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Daniel’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in support of the motion asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that counsel has performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is "wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988). In our review, we have paid particular attention to the issues identified in Daniel’s pro se response to her counsel’s brief in support of the motion to withdraw. After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we have determined the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Daniel v. State Page 2

Counsel's motion to withdraw from representation of Daniel is granted.

LEE HARRIS

Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: March 20, 2025 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed Do Not Publish [CR25]

Daniel v. State Page 3