Juan Contreras v. State

Opinion

Opinion issued March 11, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-19-00283-CR ——————————— JUAN CONTRERAS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 228th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1625893

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Juan Contreras, was found guilty by a jury of the offense of murder.

See TEX. PENAL CODE § 19.02. After a punishment hearing, the jury sentenced

appellant to 43 years’ imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice. We affirm. On appeal, Contreras’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, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

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

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

his right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. Contreras requested and was

given access to the record, but he did not 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, 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,

2 300 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 David Lawrence Garza must immediately send Contreras 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 other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Goodman, and Hightower. 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