Vernon Cooks, Jr. v. State ( 2018 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-17-00118-CR
VERNON COOKS, JR., Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 196th District Court
Hunt County, Texas
Trial Court No. 28190
Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In 2012, Vernon Cooks, Jr., pursuant to a plea agreement, pled guilty to stalking1 and was
placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of three years. In 2016, the
State moved to revoke Cooks’ community supervision and to proceed to an adjudication of his
guilt, alleging three distinct violations of Cooks’ community supervision. Cooks pled true to all
three of the allegations,2 and after an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the State’s motion.
Cooks was sentenced to 910 days’ incarceration. Cooks appeals.
Cooks’ attorney has filed a brief which states that he has reviewed the record and has found
no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural
history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court
proceedings. Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California, counsel has provided a
professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be
advanced. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403,
406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.
By letter dated January 3, 2018, counsel mailed to Cooks copies of the brief, the appellate
record, and the motion to withdraw. Cooks was informed of his rights to review the record and
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 42.072 (West 2016).
2
The trial court found allegation number one, alleging commission of a new offense, true. The trial court made no
findings on allegations two and three, which alleged failure to pay fees and court costs.
2
file a pro se response. By letter dated January 4, 2018, this Court informed Cooks that any pro se
response was due on or before February 5, 2018. On February 12, 2018, this Court further
informed Cooks that the case would be set for submission on the briefs on March 5, 2018. We
received neither a pro se response from Cooks nor a motion requesting an extension of time in
which to file such a response.
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed
the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue supports an
appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In the Anders
context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial court’s
judgment. Id.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.3
Ralph K. Burgess
Justice
Date Submitted: March 5, 2018
Date Decided: March 6, 2018
Do Not Publish
3
Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request
to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel
will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals,
he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary
review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion
or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must
be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with
the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
3