David Striever v. State

 

Opinion issued May 24, 2012.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

 

 


NO. 01-11-00184-CR

____________

 


DAVID STRIEVER, Appellant

 

V.

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

 

On Appeal from the 184th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1261927

 

 


MEMORANDUM OPINION


A jury convicted appellant, David Streiver, of Aggravated Assault of a Family Member, see Tex. Penal Code Ann. §22.02(a)(2), (b)(1) (Vernon 2011), and assessed punishment at 10 years’ confinement and a $3,000 fine. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.   

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. 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 discusses the evidence adduced at the trial, supplies us with references to the record, and provides us with citation to legal authorities. 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, 154 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

Here, counsel’s brief reflects that he 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 id. at 408.  Appellant has not filed a pro se response.

          We have independently reviewed the entire record, 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; 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, 178 S.W.3d at 826-27 (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, David L. Garza, 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 Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Keyes.

 

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 Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).