Jordan Renard Joseph v. State

Opinion

NUMBERS 13-17-00445-CR & 13-17-00450-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

JORDAN RENARD JOSEPH, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 377th District Court of Victoria County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Contreras, Longoria, and Hinojosa Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

Appellant Jordan Renard Joseph pleaded guilty in appellate cause numbers 13-

17-00445-CR and 13-17-00450-CR to separate counts of possession with intent to deliver

a controlled substance in penalty group 1 in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams, first-degree felonies. 1 See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN.

§§ 481.112(a), (d) (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). Appellant committed both

offenses in a drug-free zone. See id. § 481.134 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.)

(increasing the minimum term of confinement or imprisonment by five years). The trial

court placed appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of ten

years. The State later filed a motion to adjudicate guilt and revoke appellant’s

community supervision. After receiving appellant’s plea of true, the trial court

adjudicated appellant guilty and sentenced him to concurrent ten-year prison terms.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief in both appellate causes.

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm.

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Pursuant to Anders v. California, appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel

has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the

record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. See id.

Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief

need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must

provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal

1 We have consolidated the appeals in the interest of judicial economy.

2 authorities.”) (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343–44 (Tex. App.—Corpus

Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel

Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318–19 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014),

appellant’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no

reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court, in writing,

that counsel has: (1) notified appellant that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a

motion to withdraw; (2) provided appellant with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed

appellant of appellant’s rights to file a pro se response, 2 review the record preparatory to

filing that response, and seek discretionary review if the court of appeals concludes that

the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to

the appellate record, lacking only appellant’s signature and the date and including the

mailing address for the court of appeals, with instructions to file the motion within ten

days. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 318–19; see also In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. An adequate time has passed, and appellant has

not filed a pro se response or a motion for pro se access to the appellate record.

2 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “the pro se response need not comply with the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the case presents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696–97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).

3 II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the

proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief and found nothing

that would arguably support an appeal. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it

considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but

found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. There is no reversible error in the

record. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in both appellate causes.

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, appellant’s attorney has asked this Court for

permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80

(Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“[I]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he

must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the

appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the

appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.”) (citations omitted)). We grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is

ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to advise

4 him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. 3 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see

also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

LETICIA HINOJOSA Justice

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

Delivered and filed the 29th day of August, 2018.

3 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or 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 timely motion for en banc reconsideration that 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 Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.