Opinion issued February 20, 2014
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-12-00592-CR
———————————
TERENCE NATHANIEL TOMPKINS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 232nd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1337275
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Terence Tompkins, appeals from his conviction for possession of
a controlled substance less than one gram. See TEX. HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
ANN. § 481.115(b) (West 2010). Appellant entered an open plea of guilty to the
judge and was sentenced to 7 months confinement. Appellant filed a timely 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 therefore 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, 812−13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that she 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.).
Counsel has also informed us that she delivered a copy of the brief to
appellant’s last known address and informed him of his right to examine the
appellate record and to file a response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408
(Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant has not filed a pro se response.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we
conclude that (1) no reversible error exists in the record, (2) there are no arguable
grounds for review, and (3) therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S.
2
at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court―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 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 (same). Appellant may challenge our 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 at 827 & n.6.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.1 Attorney Patti Sedita 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).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, 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 Court of Criminal
Appeals. See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
3