Jeffrey Mendez v. State

Opinion

Opinion issued February 21, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

Appellant, Jeffrey Mendez, was found guilty by a jury of the capital felony offense of capital murder. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 19.03. The trial court sentenced appellant to life imprisonment without parole. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 12.31(a)(2). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.

Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and that, therefore, the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and supplying this Court with references to the record and legal authority. See id. at 744; 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 he is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

Appellant’s counsel certified that he delivered a copy of the motion to withdraw and Anders brief to appellant and informed appellant of his right to file a pro se response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Furthermore, counsel certified that he sent appellant the form motion for pro se access to the records for his response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 322 (Tex.

3

Crim. App. 2014). Appellant requested and was provided access to the record, but he did not file a pro se response.

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (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– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (reviewing court is not to address merits of each claim raised in Anders brief or pro se response after determining there are no arguable grounds for review); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155. 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.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a). Attorney Michael Chandler must immediately send the required notice and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of

2 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 Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826–27.

4

this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Countiss.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Footnotes

1. NO. 01-18-00067-CR ——————————— JEFFREY MENDEZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 403rd District Court Travis County, Texas1 Trial Court Case No. D-1-DC-15-301608 MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 The Texas Supreme Court transferred this appeal from the Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 73.001 (authorizing transfer of cases between courts of appeals).