Charles R. Jones v. State ( 2020 )

Opinion issued March 26, 2020
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-18-01079-CR
———————————
CHARLES R. JONES, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 179th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1510058
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Charles R. Jones, was found guilty after a jury trial of the first-
degree felony offense of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. See TEX. PENAL
CODE §29.03(a)(2). The jury assessed appellant’s punishment at 30 years’
imprisonment, which is within the applicable sentencing range. See TEX. PENAL
CODE §§ 12.32 (first-degree felony punishable by imprisonment from 5 to 99 years
or life); 29.03(b) (offense of aggravated robbery is first-degree felony). The trial
court certified that this is not a plea-bargain case, and that appellant has the right of
appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). 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 that,
therefore, the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a
professional evaluation of the record and supplying this Court with references to the
record and legal authority. See id. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807,
812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that she has thoroughly reviewed the
record and that she is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal.
See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
Appellant’s counsel has certified that she mailed a copy of the motion to
withdraw and the Anders brief to appellant and informed appellant of his right to file
a response and to access the record. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008). Furthermore, counsel certified that she sent appellant the form
motion for pro se access to the records for his response. See Kelly v. State, 436
2
S.W.3d 313, 322 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was provided a copy of the
record and filed a pro se response.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, 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 (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–
28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (reviewing court is not to address merits of each claim
raised in Anders brief or pro se response after determining there are no arguable
grounds for review); 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 Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178
S.W.3d at 827 n.6.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a). Attorney Maite Sample must
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).
3
immediately send the required notice and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of
this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as
moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Landau, and Countiss.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4