Skye Clayton Lacroix v. State
This text of Skye Clayton Lacroix v. State (Skye Clayton Lacroix v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
13-08-00019-CR
13-08-00020-CR
SKYE CLAYTON LACROIX, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 252nd District Court
of Jefferson County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Syke Clayton LaCroix, was indicted for the offense of assault on a family member (appellate cause number 13-08-00020-CR) that allegedly occurred on May 1, 2006. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(b)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2008). The indictment alleged two prior convictions, one for assault and another for assault on an elderly person, enhancing punishment to a third-degree felony. See generally, id. § 12.42 (Vernon Supp. 2008). Pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, LaCroix pleaded guilty to the indicted offense in exchange for a recommendation from the State that he receive deferred adjudication, be placed on community supervision for five years, and be assessed a $500 fine. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12 (Vernon Supp. 2008). The trial court accepted the plea agreement, deferred adjudication, placed LaCroix on community supervision for five years, and assessed a $500 fine.
On October 23, 2007, the State moved to revoke LaCroix's community supervision and adjudicate guilt on the grounds that he was a repeat offender who, after being placed on community supervision, allegedly (1) assaulted a family member (appellate cause number 13-08-00019-CR), and (2) assaulted an elderly person (appellate cause number 13-08-00018-CR). LaCroix pleaded "true" to the two allegations in the motion to revoke. On November 27, 2007, the trial court adjudicated LaCroix's guilt on the primary offense and found the two grounds for revocation of his community supervision "true." The trial court sentenced LaCroix to consecutive terms of confinement for five (13-08-00020-CR), twenty (13-08-00018-CR), and twenty (13-08-00019-CR) years. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.01, § 1(19) (Vernon 2006), art. 42.08 (Vernon 2006). LaCroix's court-appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief. We affirm.
I. Anders Brief
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), LaCroix's court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds or error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Although counsel's brief does not advance any arguable grounds of error, it does present a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) ("In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance 'arguable' points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.") (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343-44 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), LaCroix's counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there are no errors in the trial court's judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal, (2) served a copy of the brief and counsel's motion to withdraw on LaCroix, and (3) informed LaCroix of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response within thirty days. (1) See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate period of time has passed, and LaCroix has not field a pro se response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.
II. Independent Review
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel's brief and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ("Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1."); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.
III. Motion to Withdraw
In accordance with Anders, LaCroix's attorney has asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779-80 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1995, no pet.) (noting that "[i]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.") (citations omitted)). We grant counsel's motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court's opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to LaCroix and to advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. (2) See Tex. R. App. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Skye Clayton Lacroix v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skye-clayton-lacroix-v-state-texapp-2009.