Rodger Wayne Mitchell v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 16, 2006
• Docket: 07-06-00056-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NO. 07-06-0056-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

OCTOBER 16, 2006

______________________________ RODGER WAYNE MITCHELL,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 64^TH DISTRICT COURT OF CASTRO COUNTY;

NO. A3024-0506; HON. ROBERT W. KINKAID, JR., PRESIDING

_______________________________

Memorandum Opinion _______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

Rodger Wayne Mitchell (appellant) appeals his conviction for burglary of a habitation. He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to twenty years confinement and a fine of $10,000. Appellant's appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders ⁽¹⁾ brief, in which he certified that, after diligently searching the record, the appeal was without merit. Appellant filed a response on August 4, 2006.

In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel reviewed the various stages of the trial and discussed several potential areas for appeal. However, he adequately explained why each argument lacks merit. We have also conducted our own review of the record and appellant's response to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel's conclusions and to uncover any error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.3d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Our own review has failed to reveal any reversible error.

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

Brian Quinn

Chief Justice

Do not publish.

1. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

YLE="text-decoration: underline">Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a response.

By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court's judgment is affirmed. ⁽¹⁾

Mackey K. Hancock

Justice

Do not publish.

1. Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant's right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 48.4.