NSEABASI SAMUEL WILLIAMS v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).

NSEABASI SAMUEL WILLIAMS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

NO. 01-15-00509-CR

Decided: March 23, 2017

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Massengale.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Nseabasi Samuel Williams pleaded guilty without an agreed punishment recommendation to the felony offense of engaging in organized criminal activity by the fraudulent use of identifying information. See TEX. PENAL CODE §§ 32.51(b)(1), 71.02. The trial court accepted the plea and after a presentence investigation hearing, sentenced appellant to 5 years in prison. See id. § 12.34(a). 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. See id. 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.).

Although counsel advised appellant she was entitled to a copy of the record and sent appellant a form motion, appellant did not request access to the record. The deadline for her pro se response to counsel's Anders brief has passed. Appellant filed no response and requested no extension of time.

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 examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist). 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.* Attorney Jerome Godinich 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.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and that she may, on her 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