Opinion issued December 31, 2010
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-07-01119-CR
____________
PHILLIP ALEX REAZER, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 263rd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1108798
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Phillip Alex Reazer, pleaded guilty, without an agreed recommendation, to the felony offense of aggravated assault of a family member. The trial court assessed punishment at five years’ deferred adjudication community supervision. Subsequently, the State moved for an adjudication of appellant’s guilt on the grounds that appellant had violated the conditions of his community supervision. At a hearing on the motion, appellant pleaded true to the allegation that he failed to provide written verification of employment and that he failed to perform community service as ordered. The trial court found the allegations true, adjudged appellant guilty of the original charge, and assessed punishment at confinement for ten years and a $500 fine. The trial court entered an affirmative finding on the use or exhibition of a deadly weapon, namely, a lug wrench. The trial court certified that this is not a plea bargain case and that appellant has the right of appeal. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). We affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
An attorney has an ethical obligation to refuse to prosecute a frivolous appeal. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). If an appointed attorney finds a case to be wholly frivolous, her obligation to her client is to seek leave to withdraw. Id. at 407. Counsel’s obligation to the appellate court is to assure it, through an Anders brief, that, after a complete review of the record, the request to withdraw is well-founded. Id.
We may not grant the motion to withdraw until:
(1) the attorney has sent a copy of her Anders brief to her client, along with a letter explaining that the defendant has the right to file a pro se brief within 30 days, and she has ensured that her client has, at some point, been informed of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review;
(2) the attorney has informed us that she has performed the above duties;
(3) the defendant has had time in which to file a pro se response; and
(4) we have reviewed the record, the Anders brief, and any pro se brief.
See id. at 408–09. If we agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous, we will grant the attorney’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). If we conclude that arguable grounds for appeal exist, we will grant the motion to withdraw, abate the case, and remand it to the trial court to appoint new counsel to file a brief on the merits. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record. See Anders, 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 discusses the evidence, supplies us with references to the record, and provides us with citation to legal authorities. Counsel indicates that she has thoroughly reviewed the record and that she 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, 154 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
Appellant filed a pro se response, arguing that (1) he has been denied access to an adequate law library, (2) in general, the facts presented during sentencing regarding his fees and fine were “misrepresented,” (3) he wishes to bring to the court’s attention “a fact not mentioned in or before [his] sentencing,” and (4) a “proper investigation” into the “mental state of the alleged victim” would have revealed that the complainant has a history of “jealousy and mental instability” that motivated the charge being made against appellant.
We have independently reviewed the entire record, and we conclude that no reversible error exists, that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 407 n.12 (explaining that appeal is frivolous when it does not present any argument that could “conceivably persuade the court”); Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826–27 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous). Although we may issue an opinion explaining why the appeal lacks arguable merit, we are not required to do so. See Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 767. An appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d 827 & n.6.
We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw[1] and affirm the trial court’s judgment. Attorney Frances M. Northcutt must immediately send the notice required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 6.5(c). All other pending motions are denied.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Brown.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
[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 Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).