Opinion issued September 24, 2015
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-14-00584-CR
———————————
MARCO ANTONIO MORENO, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 21st District Court
Washington County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 16,198
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found appellant, Marco Antonio Moreno, guilty of the felony offense
of possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) weighing one gram or more but
less than four grams with intent to deliver in a drug-free zone. See TEX. HEALTH &
SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 481.102(3)(D) (West 2010), 481.112(c) (West 2010),
481.134(c) (West. Supp. 2014). The court sentenced appellant to thirty-three years’
imprisonment. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 481.102(6), 481.112(c),
481.134(c); TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.32 (West 2011). 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. 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 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.).
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
2
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.* Attorney Ariel Payan 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 Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Lloyd.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
*
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