Daniel Crommett v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 10, 2023
• Docket: 02-22-00320-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-22-00320-CR ___________________________

DANIEL CROMMETT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from County Criminal Court No. 5 Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. F22-299-16

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Womack, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Daniel Crommett pleaded guilty without the benefit of a plea bargain

to the third-degree felony offense of driving while intoxicated (DWI) with two

previous DWI convictions. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.09(b)(2). Additionally,

Crommett pleaded true to an enhancement paragraph, which raised the range of his

punishment to that of a second-degree felony.1 Id. § 12.42(a). After hearing the

evidence, the trial court sentenced Crommett to ten years’ imprisonment. Crommett

appealed.

After reviewing the record, Crommett’s court-appointed appellate counsel

concluded that no arguable grounds for appeal exist and filed a motion to withdraw as

counsel and a brief in support of that motion. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,

744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Crommett was given an opportunity to respond

but did not. The State waived filing a response.

Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders; counsel has

presented a professional evaluation of the entire record demonstrating why there are

no arguable grounds for relief. Id., 87 S. Ct. at 1400. We have independently

examined the record, as is our duty when counsel files an Anders brief. See Stafford v.

State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–

23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83,

1 The State waived one enhancement paragraph. The waiver does not appear to be part of any plea bargain.

2 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). After carefully reviewing the record and counsel’s brief,

we agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Our

independent review of the record reveals nothing further that might arguably support

the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also

Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

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

/s/ Dana Womack

Dana Womack Justice

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: August 10, 2023