Jimmy Klayton Launder v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 5, 2023
• Docket: 01-20-00759-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued January 5, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-20-00759-CR ——————————— JIMMY KLAYTON LAUDER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 209th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1615195

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Jimmy Klayton Lauder, pleaded guilty to the offense of arson

without an agreed recommendation as to punishment. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 28.02.

After a pre-sentencing hearing, the trial court signed a judgment of conviction on November 2, 2020 and sentenced Lauder to 8 years in the Correctional Institutions

Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

On appeal, Lauder’s appointed counsel 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. 386 U.S. 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 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.).

Counsel advised Lauder of his right to access the record and provided him

with a form motion for access to the record. Counsel further advised Lauder of his

right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. Lauder did not request access to

the record or file a pro se response to counsel’s brief.

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we

conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds

for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing

that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of

2 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.

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

withdraw.1 Attorney Jerome Godinich Jr. must immediately send Lauder the

required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Countiss, and Rivas-Molloy.

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). 3