JOSEPH LEE FREITAS v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (2017)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found appellant, Joseph Lee Freitas, guilty of the felony offense of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon.¹ Appellant pleaded true to the allegations in two enhancement paragraphs in the indictment that he had previously been convicted of the felony offenses of possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of a controlled substance. The trial court assessed punishment at confinement for forty-five years and certified that this case is not a plea-bargain case and appellant has the right to appeal. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.

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 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 has informed the Court that she delivered a copy of the brief, the clerk's record, and the reporter's record to appellant, and informed him of his right to file a response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (citations omitted); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant has filed a response to his counsel's Anders brief.

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, as well as counsel's Anders brief and appellant's response to his counsel's Anders brief, and 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, 826–27 (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.² Attorney Patti Sedita 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).

FOOTNOTES

1.   See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011).

2.   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).

PER CURIAM