Opinion issued November 8, 2016
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-15-01063-CR
———————————
RODRICK VALIN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 337th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1459489
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Rodrick Valin pleaded guilty without an agreed punishment recommendation
to the felony offense of aggravated assault. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)
(West 2011). The trial court entered an order deferring adjudication. The State
subsequently moved to adjudicate. After a hearing, the trial court adjudicated Valin
guilty and sentenced him to 5 years’ incarceration in the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 22.02(b);
12.33(a) (West 2011). Valin timely filed a notice of appeal.
Valin’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. 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 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
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
Valin’s counsel certified that he had sent Valin a copy of the record and
advised him of his right to file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. The pro
se response was due on July 13, 2016, but no response was received.
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
2
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
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 Texas 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 Nicholas Mensch must immediately send Valin the required
notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P.
6.5(c). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Brown, and Huddle.
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 Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
3