Demetrius Strong v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-21-00314-CR
DEMETRIUS STRONG,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 66th District Court
Hill County, Texas
Trial Court No. 39,168
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Demetrius Strong pleaded guilty to possession of between one and
four grams of methamphetamine. The trial court found Strong guilty, assessed his
punishment at ten years in prison, and placed him on five years’ community
supervision. The trial court subsequently revoked Strong’s community supervision and
sentenced him to ten years in prison. Strong appeals from the trial court’s judgment.
We will affirm.
Strong’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in
support of the motion 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’s brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and
compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that counsel has
performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See id. at 744; High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20
(Tex. Crim. App. 2014); 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.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744;
see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); 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, 438 n.10 (1988).
In our review, we have paid particular attention to the issues identified in Strong's pro se
response to his counsel's brief in support of the motion to withdraw. After a review of
the entire record in this appeal, we have determined 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 judgment.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of Strong is granted.
Strong v. State Page 2
MATT JOHNSON
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Johnson, and
Justice Smith
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed May 11, 2022
Do not publish
[CR25]
Strong v. State Page 3