Opinion issued December 5, 2013
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-12-01137-CR
____________
Christopher Charles King, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 149th District Court
Brazoria County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 64792
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Christopher Charles King, pleaded guilty to the offense of Driving
While Intoxicated, 3rd Offense, with an agreed recommendation from the State
regarding punishment. Appellant entered an agreed recommendation that
adjudication be deferred and appellant was placed on community supervision for 5
years and received a $500.00 fine. Following a hearing on State’s Petition for
Revocation of Probated Sentence on alleged violations of probation, the trial court
revoked appellant’s probation and sentenced him to 5 years with the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice.
Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal 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 he has
thoroughly reviewed the record and that he 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 informed us that he has delivered a copy of the brief to appellant
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
filed a response that raises no potential points of reversible error.
2
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we
conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable
grounds for review, and that therefore 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)
(explaining that frivolity is determined by considering whether there are “arguable
grounds” for review); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist);
Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds
exist by reviewing entire record). 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 at 827 & n.6.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.1 Attorney Keith G. Allen 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).
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 Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App.
1997).
3
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4
Christopher Charles King v. State
Combined Opinion