Opinion issued October 24, 2013
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-13-00174-CR
NO. 01-13-00175-CR
———————————
CHARLES DAVIS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from 178th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. 1339915, 1339916
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Charles Davis, pleaded guilty, without an agreed
recommendation from the State regarding punishment, to the offenses of
aggravated assault on a public servant1 and aggravated robbery.2 See TEX. PENAL
CODE ANN. §§.22.02, 29.03 (West 2011). In each offense, the trial court found
appellant guilty and entered an affirmative finding on the use or exhibition of a
deadly weapon, namely, a firearm. The trial court assessed punishment of
confinement for 45 years for each offense, with the sentences to be served
concurrently.
In each appeal, appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw, along with an Anders brief, stating that the record presents no reversible
error and that, therefore, the appeal 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. See id.; 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 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; In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Mitchell v. State, 193
S.W.3d 153, 154 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
Further, counsel’s brief reflects that he delivered a copy of the brief to
appellant and has informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to
file a response. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408. More than 30 days have
1
Appellate cause number 01-13-00174-CR and trial court cause number 1339916.
2
Appellate cause number 01-13-00175-CR and trial court cause number 1339915.
2
passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se response. See id. at 409 n.23 (adopting
30–day period for response). The State has filed a waiver of its opportunity to file
an appellee’s brief.
In each appeal, we have reviewed counsel’s brief and have independently
reviewed the entire record. We conclude that no reversible error exists, that there
are no arguable grounds for review, and that therefore the appeals are frivolous.
See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763,
767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (considering whether there are “arguable grounds” for
review); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)
(emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full
examination of proceedings, whether the appeal is wholly frivolous); Mitchell, 193
S.W.3d at 155. 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 827 & n.6.
In each appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw.3 Attorney Don R. Cantrell 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).
3
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 Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005).
3
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Massengale.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4