Opinion issued January 27, 2015
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-13-00915-CR
———————————
JOSHUA BOOKER-LOMAX, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 13-17252
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Joshua Booker-Lomax, pleaded guilty to the state jail felony
offense of evading arrest. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.04(a), (b)(1)(A) (West
Supp. 2014). In accordance with appellant’s plea-bargain agreement with the
State, the trial court found sufficient evidence to find appellant guilty, but deferred
making any finding regarding appellant’s guilt and placed appellant on community
supervision for a period of three years. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.
42.12 § 5(a) (West Supp. 2014). The State then filed a motion to adjudicate
appellant’s guilt. See id. §§ 5(b), 21(e). Appellant pleaded true to the first alleged
violation of the terms of his community supervision. The trial court found the
allegation true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and sentenced appellant to two years’
imprisonment. See id. §§ 5(b), 21(b), 23. 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 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.).
2
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); 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.1 Attorney Jack Lawrence 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).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.
1
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).
3
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4