Opinion issued May 11, 2006
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-05-00399-CR
JOHN W. COLEMAN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 338th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 998406
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted appellant, John W. Coleman, of felony escape and assessed his punishment at confinement for four years.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in which she concludes that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967), in that it comprises a complete evaluation of the record and addresses all possible grounds for appeal. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet. ref’d); Moore v. State, 845 S.W.2d 352, 353 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet. ref’d).
After an attorney files an Anders brief, which should be accompanied by a motion to withdraw from the case, an appellant is afforded an opportunity to respond. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Here, appellant filed a pro se response in which he argues that: (1) he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial; (2) his counsel was ineffective; (3) the indictment and complaint against him were fatally defective; and (4) he is the target of a conspiracy entered into by the trial court, prosecuting attorney, defense attorney at trial, and defense attorney on appeal. Based on our review of the record, we affirm.BACKGROUND
On May 27, 2004, appellant was an inmate at Pam Lyncher State Jail (“the jail”). That day, appellant was assigned to work on a yard crew responsible for maintaining grounds located outside the jail’s perimeter fence. Appellant’s work crew was supervised by M. Kosar, an employee with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Consistent with jail policy, Kosar temporarily left the work crew unsupervised. Upon his return, Kosar was unable to locate appellant and notified the jail’s warden that appellant was missing. Approximately 150 people began searching for appellant, who eventually was found approximately two and a half hours after his escape. At trial, appellant testified that he suffered from mental illness, was suicidal, and had no recollection of escaping.
DISCUSSION
Appellant contends that his case presents various arguable issues on appeal, including: (1) denial of the right to a speedy trial; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) fatal defects in the indictment and complaint; and (4) conspiratorial misconduct by the State and defense for the purpose of convicting and imprisoning appellant.
When a court of appeals is confronted with an Anders brief and a pro se brief, as is the case here, the court may (1) “determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that [the court has] reviewed the record and finds no reversible error,” or “[the court] may determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.” Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). The court should not specifically address the points of error raised in an appellant’s pro se brief because doing so would potentially compromise the appellant’s right to counsel in the event that appellant’s case is ultimately remanded by the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. at 827.
Here, after carefully reviewing the record, we find no reversible error and hold that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Id. at 826. CONCLUSION
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).
Evelyn V. Keyes
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Nuchia, Keyes, and Hanks.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.