Christopher Bradley Guthery v. State ( 2016 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-16-00072-CR
CHRISTOPHER BRADLEY GUTHERY, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 316th District Court
Hutchinson County, Texas
Trial Court No. 10,781, Honorable William D. Smith, Presiding
October 19, 2016
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Appellant, Christopher Bradley Guthery, was convicted by a jury of the offense of
sexual assault.1 After hearing the punishment evidence, including appellant’s plea of
“True” to allegation of one prior felony conviction, the jury assessed appellant’s
punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice for sixty-five years and a fine of $5,000. Appellant has perfected his
appeal and we will affirm.
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.011(a)(1)(A) (West 2011).
Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his
motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record and, in
his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be
predicated. Id. at 744-45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.
Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the
controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court’s judgment. Additionally,
counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and
motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se
response in this matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)
(en banc). The Court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response.
Additionally, appellant’s counsel has certified that he has provided appellant with a
motion to acquire a copy of the record to use in preparation of a pro se response. See
Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant has filed no
response.
By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an
appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and
made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any
arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,
82-83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
2
826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree
with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.2
Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court’s
judgment is affirmed.
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
Do not publish.
2
Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the
opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary
review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.
3