Martin K. Edwards v. State

Opinion

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00226-CR

MARTIN K. EDWARDS, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 52nd District Court Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15-23103

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Upon his open plea of guilty, the trial court convicted Martin K. Edwards of the offense of online solicitation of a minor. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. 33.021(c) (West 2016). The trial court assessed punishment at 7 years confinement. We affirm.

Edwards’s retained counsel adopted an Anders brief filed by Edwards’s former appointed attorney. The Anders brief filed stated that counsel has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel informed Edwards of his right to submit a brief on his own behalf. Edwards did not file a brief. Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error, and we conclude that counsel performed the duties required of counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at; accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is "wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10 (1988). After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we determine the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Counsel's request that he be allowed to withdraw from representation of Edwards is granted. Additionally, counsel must send Edwards a copy of our decision, notify Edwards of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter certifying counsel's compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4. TEX.R.APP.P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.

Edwards v. State Page 2

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed; motion granted Opinion delivered and filed April 19, 2017 Do not publish [CR25]

Edwards v. State Page 3