Opinion issued August 30, 2016
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-15-00517-CR
NO. 01-15-00518-CR
———————————
JOHN HENRY SKILLERN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 182nd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case Nos. 1436278 & 1436279
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, John Henry Skillern, pleaded guilty without an agreed
recommendation on punishment to the third-degree felony offense of possession of
child pornography and the second-degree felony offense of promotion of child
pornography.1 After appellant pleaded true to the allegations in an enhancement
paragraph, the trial court found the enhancement allegations true and assessed
appellant’s punishment at twenty years’ confinement and forty-five years’
confinement, respectively, to run concurrently. The trial court certified that the case
is not a plea-bargain case and that appellant has the right to appeal. Appellant timely
filed a notice of appeal.
Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along
with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and 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 id. 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 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
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 43.26(a) (West Supp. 2015) (possession of child
pornography); id. § 43.26(e) (promotion of child pornography). Appellant was
convicted of possession of child pornography in trial court cause number 1436278,
which resulted in appellate cause number 01-15-00517-CR, and promotion of child
pornography in trial court cause number 1436279, which resulted in appellate cause
number 01-15-00518-CR.
2
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Counsel has also informed us that
he delivered a copy of the appellate record and the brief to appellant and informed
him of his right to file a response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014) (holding that appellate counsel who files Anders brief must “take concrete
measures to initiate and facilitate the process of actuating his client’s right to review
the appellate record, if that is what his client wishes”).
In his pro se response, appellant argues that he did not receive his Miranda
warnings, that the arresting officers used excessive force, that the State’s witness at
the sentencing hearing committed perjury, that the trial court improperly admitted
evidence, that his sentences violated the Eighth Amendment, and that his trial
counsel rendered ineffective assistance.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we
conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds
for review, and 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) (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 (reviewing court
3
determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We note
that 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.2 Attorney Kyle B. Johnson must immediately send appellant the required
notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P.
6.5(c).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Brown.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
2
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) (per
curiam).
4