Christopher Bradley Young v. State

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-14-00045-CR Christopher Bradley Young, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 71001, THE HONORABLE JOHN GAUNTT, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION After a bench trial, the trial court found appellant Christopher Bradley Young guilty of evading detention with a vehicle, see Tex. Penal Code § 38.04, and, pursuant to the repeat offender provision of the Penal Code, assessed appellant’s punishment at confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for five years, see id. § 12.42(a). Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81–82 (1988). Appellant’s counsel has represented to this Court that she sent copies of the motion and brief to appellant, advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response, and provided a motion to assist appellant in obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Appellant requested access to the appellate record, and pursuant to this Court’s order the clerk of the trial court provided written verification to this Court that the record was provided to appellant. See Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 321. To date, appellant has not filed a pro se response or requested an extension of time to file a response. We have conducted an independent review of the record and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. __________________________________________ J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin Affirmed Filed: September 17, 2014 Do Not Publish 2