Tyrus Nathaniel Green v. State
Opinion
Opinion issued February 13, 2020
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
court heard testimony from the homicide detective and the complainant’s sister, and the trial court assessed appellant’s punishment at twenty-five years’ confinement, which is within the applicable sentencing range. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.32(a). The trial court certified that appellant had the right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal and new counsel was appointed.
Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and that, therefore, the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See generally Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and supplying this Court with references to the record and legal authority. See id. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that she has thoroughly reviewed the record and that she 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.).
Appellant’s counsel has informed us that she has delivered a copy of the motion to withdraw and Anders brief to appellant and informed him of his right to file a pro se response after obtaining access to the record. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Furthermore, counsel has certified that she has sent the form motion for pro se access to the record to appellant for his
response, if any. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 322 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant filed a pro se response to his counsel’s Anders brief.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that therefore 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 the appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (concluding that reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (concluding that reviewing court need not address merits of each claim raised in Anders brief or pro se response after determining there are no arguable grounds for review); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155– 56. 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.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a). Attorney, Aimee Bolletino, must
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 Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.
immediately send the required notice and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Goodman, and Countiss.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Tyrus Nathaniel Green v. State (Tyrus Nathaniel Green v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.