DENNIS MIKE CRANFILL AKA DENNIS CRANFIELD v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (2017)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

Appellant Dennis Mike Cranfill, a.k.a. Dennis Cranfield, was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (a knife), a second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02 (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.). Cranfill entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced to two years' deferred adjudication probation. The State filed a motion to revoke deferred adjudication probation. The trial court revoked Cranfill's probation, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to fifteen years' confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division. This appeal ensued. Cranfill's appointed counsel has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm.

I. ANDERS BRIEF 2

Cranfill's appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support in which he states that he has diligently reviewed the entire record and has found no non-frivolous issues. See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a thorough, professional evaluation of the record showing why there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal. See ln re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“ln Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance 'arguable' points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc).

In compliance with High, 573 S.W.2d at 813, Cranfill's counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court's judgment. Cranfill's counsel also informed this Court that he has: (1) notified Cranfill that he has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided Cranfill with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed Cranfill of his rights to file a pro se response, to review the record preparatory to filing that response, and to seek discretionary review if we conclude that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided Cranfill with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record, lacking only Cranfill's signature. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also ln re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23.

An adequate amount of time has passed, and Cranfill has not requested pro se access to the appellate record or filed a pro se response.

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief and we have found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion it considered the issues raised in the brief and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, Cranfill's appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also ln re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.”) (citations omitted)). We grant the motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Cranfill and to advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review.³ See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also ln re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

FOOTNOTES

2.   This case is before the Court on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals in Austin pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West, Westlaw through 2015 R.S.).

3.   No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.

NORA L. LONGORIA Justice