Willie Clarke v. State

Opinion

Opinion issued April 21, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-15-00547-CR NO. 01-15-00548-CR NO. 01-15-00549-CR ——————————— WILLIE CLARKE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 178th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1453864, 1457279, 1465671

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Willie Clarke, pled guilty to theft and two cases of fraudulent use

of identifying information. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 31.03(a), (e)(4)(D),

32.51(b) (West Supp. 2015). Pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced appellant to six months in the State Jail Division of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice in cause numbers 1453864 and 1457279 and three

years in the Institutional Division in cause number 1465671. See id. §§ 12.35(a)

(West Supp. 2015), 12.34 (West 2011), 12.425(a) (West Supp. 2015).

Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal 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 he 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.).

Appellant did not file a response to 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, 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

2 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–

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 Angela Cameron must immediately send appellant 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 Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes and Higley.

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