Thomas Keith Sloan v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 7, 2019
• Docket: 01-18-00142-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued February 7, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-18-00142-CR ——————————— THOMAS KEITH SLOAN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 177th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1517822

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Thomas Keith Sloan pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated robbery with

a deadly weapon and was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment in the Institutional

Division of Texas Department of Criminal Justice. On appeal, Sloan’s appointed

counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, along with a brief, stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (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. 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807,

812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that she has thoroughly reviewed the

record and is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See

Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

Counsel advised Sloan of his right to access the record and provided him with

a form motion for access to the record. Counsel further advised Sloan of his right to

file a pro se response to the Anders brief. Sloan did not request access to the record

and 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, 87 S. Ct. at 1400

(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 review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–

2 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); 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 judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw.1 Attorney Cheri Duncan must immediately send Sloan the required notice

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

We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Hightower. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

1 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