eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2018-09

Dustin Scott Harwell v. State ( 2018 )


Menu:
 
  •                                   IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-18-00008-CR
DUSTIN SCOTT HARWELL,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 21st District Court
Burleson County, Texas
Trial Court No. 15,391
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The trial court convicted Dustin Scott Harwell of the offense of burglary of a
habitation and assessed punishment at fifteen years confinement. We affirm.
Harwell’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief asserting that he has diligently
reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders
v. California,
    386 U.S. 738 
    (1967). Counsel informed Harwell of his right to submit a brief
on his own behalf. Harwell did not file a brief. Counsel's brief evidences a professional
evaluation of the record for error, and we conclude that counsel performed the duties
required of appointed counsel. See Anders v.
    California, 386 U.S. at 744
    ; High v. State,
    573 S.W.2d 807
    , 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also In re Schulman,
    252 S.W.3d 403
    , 407 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008).
In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the
proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. at; accord Stafford v. State,
    813 S.W.2d 503
    , 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal
is "wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v.
Court of Appeals,
    486 U.S. 429
    , 439 n. 10 (1988). After a review of the entire record in this
appeal, we determine the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State,
    178 S.W.3d 824
    , 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgments.
Counsel's request that he be allowed to withdraw from representation of Harwell
is granted. Additionally, counsel must send Harwell a copy of our decision, notify
Harwell of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and send this Court
a letter certifying counsel's compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4.
TEX.R.APP.P. 48.4; see also In re
    Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 
    n.22.
AL SCOGGINS
Justice
Harwell v. State                                                                       Page 2
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed; motion granted
Opinion delivered and filed September 12, 2018
Do not publish
[CR25]
Harwell v. State                                 Page 3