Opinion issued August 20, 2013
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-12-00753-CR
———————————
BRANDON JAMES JOSEPH, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from 248th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1255839
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Brandon James Joseph, pleaded guilty, without an agreed
recommendation from the State regarding punishment, to the offense of aggravated
robbery with a deadly weapon, namely, a firearm. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§.29.03 (West 2011). The trial court deferred adjudication of appellant’s guilt and
placed him on community supervision for five years. The State subsequently
moved for adjudication, alleging that appellant had violated the conditions of his
community supervision by, inter alia, committing a new violation of the law. At
the hearing on the motion, appellant pleaded true to the allegation. The trial court
found the allegation true, found appellant guilty of the underlying offense, and
assessed punishment at confinement for 18 years. The trial court entered an
affirmative finding on the use or exhibition of a deadly weapon.
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
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 she has thoroughly
reviewed the record and that she 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.).
Counsel’s brief reflects that she delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and
has informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a
2
response. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408. Appellant has filed a pro se
response. The State filed a waiver of its opportunity to file an appellee’s brief.
We have independently reviewed counsel’s brief, appellant’s pro se
response, and the entire record. 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; 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.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.1 Attorney Patricia Segura 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
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 Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005).
3
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Bland.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4