Marcus Allen v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 16, 2016
• Docket: 01-15-00984-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued August 16, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-15-00984-CR ——————————— MARCUS ALLEN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 185th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1472030

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Marcus Allen, was found guilty by a jury of the state jail felony

offense of possession of a controlled substance in an amount less than one gram. See

TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 481.102(6), 481.115(b) (West 2010).

Appellant pleaded true to two enhancement paragraphs and the trial court sentenced appellant to ten years’ imprisonment. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.425 (West

Supp. 2015). 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. See Anders, 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 she 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.).

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,

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

2 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. 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). Attorney Keisha Smith 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).

We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Higley, Bland, and Massengale.

Do not publish.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