Opinion issued February 18, 2010
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-07-00955-CR
———————————
MICHAEL LEE MYLES, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 344th District Court
Chambers County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 10998
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Michael Lee Myles, pleaded guilty to possession with intent to deliver more than 400 grams of cocaine. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.112(a), (f), 481.102(3)(D) (Vernon 2003). Appellant also pleaded true to using a deadly weapon during the offense. After a presentence investigation report, the trial court assessed punishment at 40 years’ confinement and a $5,000 fine. We affirm.
ANDERS PROCEDURE
The brief submitted by appellant’s court-appointed counsel states his professional opinion that there are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal and that any appeal would, therefore, lack merit. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. Counsel’s brief meets the minimum Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and stating why there are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). The State has not filed a reply to the arguments presented in appellant’s pro se response.
When we receive an Anders brief from a defendant’s court-appointed attorney who asserts that no arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must determine that issue independently by conducting our own review of the entire record. 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 case is “wholly frivolous”); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). In conducting our review, we consider any pro se response that the defendant files to his appointed counsel’s Anders brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Our role in this Anders appeal, which includes a pro se response by appellant, is limited to determining whether arguable grounds for appeal exist. Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827. If we determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must abate the appeal and remand the case to the trial court to allow the court-appointed attorney to withdraw. Id. The trial court must then either appoint another attorney to present all arguable grounds for appeal or, if the defendant wishes, allow the defendant to proceed pro se. Id. We do not rule on the ultimate merits of the issues raised by appellant in his pro se response. Id. If we determine that there are arguable grounds for appeal, appellant is entitled to have new counsel address the merits of the issues raised. Id. “Only after the issues have been briefed by new counsel may [we] address the merits of the issues raised.” Id.
If, on the other hand, we determine, from our independent review of the entire record, that the appeal is wholly frivolous, we may affirm the trial court's judgment by issuing an opinion in which we explain that we have reviewed the record and have found no reversible error. Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-27. While this Court may issue an opinion stating why the appeal lacks arguable merit, we are not required to do so. Garner v. State, 2009 WL 4640565, *3 (Tex. Crim. App. App. December 9, 2009). The holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal is subject to challenge by an appellant by a petition for discretionary review filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. at 827 & n. 6.
In accordance with Anders and Bledsoe, we have reviewed the record, read appellant's appointed counsel's Anders brief, read appellant’s pro se response to that brief, and conclude that no reversible error exists.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw.[1]
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Alcala and Higley.
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
[1] Appointed counsel has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 & n. 6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771-72 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).