Roy Miles Ford v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 7, 2023
• Docket: 08-22-00139-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

ROY MILES FORD, § No. 08-22-00139-CR

Appellant, § Appeal from the

v. § 33rd Judicial District Court

THE STATE OF TEXAS, § of Burnet County, Texas

Appellee. § (TC# 49738)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant appeals his conviction and sentence for the felony possession of

methamphetamine in an amount of 400 grams or more with intent to distribute. Ford’s counsel

filed an Anders brief in support of a motion to withdraw as Appellant’s counsel. We grant counsel’s

motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court. 1

Appellant was indicted on July 9, 2019, for the offense. A guilt/innocence jury trial was

held on June 6, 2022. The trial court proceeded to sentence him to 55 years’ imprisonment in the

Texas Department of Criminal Justice following a finding of guilt and a finding that Appellant

used a deadly weapon in committing the offense.

1 This case was transferred from the Third Court of Appeals pursuant to the Texas Supreme Court’s authority under Chapter 73 of the Government Code. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73. We follow the precedent of the Third Court of Appeals to the extent it might conflict with our own. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. On May 18, 2023, Appellant’s counsel filed an Anders brief indicating that although

“Appellant may have a claim he might pursue on a post-conviction application for writ of habeas

corpus for ineffective assistance of counsel where he would have the opportunity to further develop

the record[,]” there is no issue upon which an appeal would likely succeed. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 137 (Tex. Crim. App.

1969). In Anders, the United States Supreme Court recognized that counsel appointed to represent

the appellant in an appeal from a criminal conviction had no duty to pursue a frivolous matter on

appeal. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. As such, counsel was permitted to withdraw after informing the

court of his conclusion and efforts made in arriving at that conclusion. Id.

Here, Appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel along with the Anders

brief. The brief satisfies the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional

evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on

appeal. Id. As required by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Appellant’s counsel has certified

to this Court that he has provided copies of the motion and brief to Appellant, advised Appellant

of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response, notified Appellant of his

right to seek discretionary review should we find his appeal frivolous, provided a motion to assist

Appellant in obtaining the record, and supplied Appellant with this Court’s mailing address. See

Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.

On May 26, 2023, Appellant filed a pro se motion for access to the appellate record, which

was filed in this Court on June 7, 2023. On June 28, 2023, the trial court sent the clerk’s record to

Appellant, and the court reporter sent Appellant the reporter’s record, which reached the receiving

post office box on July 17, 2023. Having received no brief from Appellant by August 16, 2023,

this Court set the case for submission on September 6, 2023, and advised Appellant that he would

2 have ten days from August 16, 2023, to submit his pro se brief, after which this Court would

resume consideration of the appeal on his counsel’s Anders brief.

To date, Appellant has not filed a pro se brief. After thoroughly reviewing the record and

the Anders brief, we find no grounds for reversible error. Accordingly, we find the appeal without

merit.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Because the

trial court’s certification of Appellant’s right to appeal in this case does not bear Appellant’s

signature, this Court ORDERS Appellant’s attorney, pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4, to send

Appellant a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment, to notify Appellant of his right to file

a pro se petition for discretionary review, and to inform Appellant of the applicable deadlines

therefor. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4, 68.2. Appellant’s attorney is further ORDERED to comply with

all of the requirements of TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.

LISA J. SOTO, Justice

September 7, 2023

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)