Crystal Keimoni Daniel v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 20, 2025
• Docket: 10-24-00154-CR
• Status: Published

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