Milton Earl Edgar, Jr. v. State ( 2018 )

Opinion issued March 8, 2018
In The
C ourt of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-17-00074-CR
———————————
MILTON EARL EDGAR, JR., Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 230th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1410624
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Milton Earl Edgar, Jr., pleaded guilty to the first-degree felony
offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child under the age of 141 without an agreed
recommendation from the State concerning sentencing. The trial court sentenced
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.021(a)(1)(B)(iv).
appellant to 35 years’ incarceration in the Institutional Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.
Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along
with a brief, stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal is
without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.
1396 (1967).
Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal
authority. 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807,
812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the
record and is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
Counsel advised appellant of his right to access the record and provided him
with a form motion for access to the record. Counsel further advised appellant of his
right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. Appellant did not request access
to the record and did not file 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, there are no arguable grounds
for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400
2
(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–
27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court
determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We note that
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.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.2 Attorney Brian M. Middleton must immediately send appellant the
required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX.
R. APP . P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Brown.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP . P. 47.2(b).
2
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 Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
3