Tylon Ladarryl Greer v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed January 20, 2023
S In the
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-22-00131-CR
TYLON LADARRYL GREER, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 354th Judicial District Court
Hunt County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 32082
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Carlyle, Garcia, and Miskel
Opinion by Justice Carlyle
Tylon Ladarryl Greer appeals the revocation of his community supervision
and adjudication of guilt for the offense of possession of methamphetamine in the
amount of more than one gram but less than four grams.
Mr. Greer’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, supported by a brief in
which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and
applicable law and concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief
meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief
presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no
arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim.
App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining whether brief meets requirements of Anders).
Counsel certifies he provided Mr. Greer with a copy of the brief and the motion to
withdraw. We advised Mr. Greer by letter of his right to file a pro se response, but
he has not done so. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014) (explaining right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel).1
We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178
S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in
Anders cases). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit, and we find
nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
/Cory L. Carlyle/
CORY L. CARLYLE
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
220131F.U05
1
Though counsel’s brief complies with Anders, the record is unclear as to whether counsel complied
with the requirements imposed by Kelly. Regardless, this Court’s letter properly informed Mr. Greer of his
rights, including his right to file a petition for discretionary review, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68, and thus
addressed any deficiencies in counsel’s correspondence. Under these circumstances, any failure by counsel
to comply with Kelly’s requirements is harmless.
–2–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
TYLON LADARRYL GREER, On Appeal from the 354th Judicial
Appellant District Court, Hunt County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 32082.
No. 05-22-00131-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle.
Justices Garcia and Miskel
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered January 20, 2023
–3–