Quinton Terel Randolph v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 12, 2024
• Docket: 01-23-00212-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued December 12, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00210-CR NO. 01-23-00212-CR ——————————— QUINTON TEREL RANDOLPH, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 180th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case Nos. 1807433 and 1807434

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Quinton Terel Randolph was indicted on two counts of aggravated

sexual assault. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.021(a)(1). A jury found him guilty,

sentenced him to 28 years’ confinement in the Correctional Institutions Division of

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and imposed a $5,000 fine. On appeal, Randolph’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, along

with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal is both

without merit and frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (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. Id.; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

Counsel indicates that he 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 Randolph of his right to access the record and provided him

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

his right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. Randolph was granted access

to the appellate record but did not file a pro se response.

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

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 reversal on appeal exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27

2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (reviewing court determines whether appeal is wholly

frivolous or arguable grounds for appeal exist); 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 trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.1

Attorney Terrence A. Gaiser must immediately send Randolph the required notice

and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court.2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Landau, and Rivas-Molloy.

Do not publish.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

1 All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. 2 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