IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL A
SEPTEMBER 23, 2005
______________________________IN RE TIMOTHY HEMBREE, RELATOR _______________________________
Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
By this original proceeding, relator Timothy Hembree, acting pro se, (1) seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the judge of the 31st District Court of Gray County to dismiss a detainer filed against relator with the Oklahoma Corrections Department, resulting from relator's indictment in cause number 6444 in the 31st District Court of Gray County, Texas. We dismiss the petition.
Rule 52.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure prescribes the mandatory contents of a petition for mandamus. Specifically, relator has failed to comply with subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (h) and (j) of Rule 52.3.
Thus, because relator has not complied with the requirements of Rule 52 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss this proceeding. (2)
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
1. -
2. Further, while relator makes reference to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, [Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann.] art. 51.14 (Vernon 1979), neither the facts recited in his petition nor the uncertified documents appended to it reflect that he has complied with the requirements of that Act. In fact, one of the exhibits appended to relator's petition appears to be a memorandum to relator, dated August 12, 2005, from a correctional officer of the Oklahoma institution in which he apparently is incarcerated, in which the officer offers to assist him with the "paperwork" required under the Act. For that reason, also, relator has not demonstrated entitlement to the writ he seeks from this court. See Canadian Helicopters Ltd. v. Wittig, 876 S.W.2d 304, 305 (Tex. 1994) (orig. proceeding).
en="true" UnhideWhenUsed="true" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
NO. 07-08-0454-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
FEBRUARY 25, 2010
_________________________
JAMES MICHAEL FIELDS, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________
FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;
NO. B17234-0705; HONORABLE ED SELF, JUDGE
___________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted appellant, James Michael Fields, of two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child.1 On each count, it sentenced him to sixty years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The sentences are concurrent. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. His court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw from representation supported by an Anders2 brief. We grant counsels motion to withdraw and affirm the judgments of the trial court.
In the Anders brief supporting his motion to withdraw, appellants court-appointed counsel analyzed the evidence adduced at trial. He advanced a potential legal and factual sufficiency issue but concluded after reviewing the entire record and conducting research the case presents no reversible error and in his opinion the appeal is frivolous. Attached to counsels motion to withdraw was a copy of a letter from him to appellant transmitting the motion to withdraw and the Anders brief and notifying appellant of the right to file a pro se response. The letter also notified appellant how to obtain a copy of the record. See Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641, 646-47 (Tex.App.Waco 1994, pet. refused), modified in part by Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693 (Tex.App.Waco 1997, no pet.). This court also advised appellant by letter of his right to file a response to counsels Anders brief. Appellant did not file a pro se response.
When court-appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw and a brief in which he concludes no arguable grounds for appeal exist, we review the entire record and make an independent determination. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400 (the appellate court, and not counsel, after full examination of the record, determines whether the case is wholly frivolous); accord Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005); Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). If, from our review of the entire record, we find arguable grounds for appeal, we will abate the appeal, remand the case to the trial court, and allow withdrawal of court-appointed counsel. Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-27; Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 156. If we determine from our review of the entire record that the appeal is wholly frivolous, we may affirm the trial courts judgment by issuing an opinion explaining that we reviewed the record and found no arguable grounds for appeal. Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-27; Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 156. An appellant may challenge a court of appeals finding of no arguable grounds for appeal by a petition for discretionary review filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals. Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6; Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 156.
After reviewing counsels Anders brief, we reviewed the entire record. We find no arguable grounds for appeal. Accordingly, the motion of appellants counsel to withdraw is granted3 and the judgments are affirmed.
It is so ordered.
James T. Campbell
Justice
Do not publish.
1 Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.021 (Vernon Supp. 2009).
2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 404 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008) (sole purpose of Anders brief is to explain and support counsels motion to withdraw).
3 Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendants right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 48.4.