Deveon Antoine v. State
This text of Deveon Antoine v. State (Deveon Antoine v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Opinion issued August 27, 2015
In The
Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-14-00188-CR ——————————— DEVEON ANTOINE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 177th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1326805
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Deveon Antoine pleaded guilty, without an agreed
recommendation from the State, to the first-degree felony offense of aggravated
robbery with a deadly weapon. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03 (West 2011 & Supp. 2014). The trial court signed an order of deferred adjudication and placed
appellant on community supervision for a period of five years. See TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12 § 3(a) (West 2006 & Supp. 2013).
The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke appellant’s community
supervision. Appellant pleaded true to the alleged violations of his community
supervision. After a hearing, the trial court found the allegations true, adjudicated
appellant guilty of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, and sentenced him to
eight years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.
Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal 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. Id. 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 he has thoroughly reviewed
the record and that the sole issue which the trial court permitted appellant to appeal
is without merit, and that appellant waived his right to appeal any other issues. See
2 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 has also informed us that he delivered a copy of the appellate record
and the brief to appellant and informed him of his right to file a response. See In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant has not filed a
pro se response.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we
conclude that the only issue appellant is authorized to appeal is without merit, that
appellant waived his right to appeal any other issues, and that the appeal is
frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (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.
3 We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw. 1 Attorney Bob Wicoff must immediately send appellant the required
notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 6.5(c).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Huddle, and Lloyd.
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). 4
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Deveon Antoine v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deveon-antoine-v-state-texapp-2015.