Deontra Terrel Mason v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 13, 2011
• Docket: 06-10-00237-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________

No. 06-10-00237-CR ______________________________

DEONTRA TERREL MASON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 336th Judicial District Court Fannin County, Texas Trial Court No. CR-10-23444

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss MEMORANDUM OPINION

Deontra Terrel Mason appeals from his conviction in a trial before the court for assault.

The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to one year in county jail.

Mason’s attorney on appeal has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the

proceedings in detail. Counsel has thus provided a professional evaluation of the record

demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. This meets the

requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503

(Tex. Crim. App. 1981); and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

Counsel mailed a copy of the brief and a letter to Mason on June 29, 2011, informing

Mason of his right to file a pro se response and of his right to review the record. No response has

been filed. Counsel has also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this

appeal.

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently

reviewed the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and find no genuinely arguable issue. See

Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605, 623 (2005). We, therefore, agree with counsel’s assessment

that no arguable issues support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2005).

2 We affirm the judgment of the trial court.1

Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice

Date Submitted: September 12, 2011 Date Decided: September 13, 2011

Do Not Publish

1 Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or appellant must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or for en banc reconsideration was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3 (amended by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Misc. Docket No. 11-104, effective Sept. 1, 2011). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.