Robert Eugene Ingram, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee (2016)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The jury convicted Robert Eugene Ingram, Appellant, of the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against a family member.  After Appellant pleaded true to both enhancement allegations, the jury assessed his punishment at confinement for a term of thirty-six years.  We dismiss the appeal.

Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw.  The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous.  Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, and a motion for pro se access to the appellate record.  Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel's brief.²  Upon Appellant's filing of the motion for pro se access to the appellate record, the clerk of this court sent the record to Appellant on March 24, 2016.  We note that Appellant has not filed a response to counsel's brief.

Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967);  Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex.Crim.App.2014);  In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex.Crim.App.2008);  Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Crim.App.1991);  High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978);  Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Crim.App.1974);  Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App.1969);  and Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex.App.–Eastland 2005, no pet.).  In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.  Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409;  Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex.Crim.App.2005).  Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed.  See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.

We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise Appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court.  Tex.R.App. P. 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant's right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review under Rule 68.”).  Likewise, this court advises Appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Tex.R.App. P. 68.

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

FOOTNOTES

2.   This court granted Appellant more than thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel's brief.

PER CURIAM

Bailey, J., not participating.