Natalie Crosby v. State ( 2018 )

Opinion issued June 21, 2018
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-17-00664-CR
NO. 01-17-00665-CR
NO. 01-17-00676-CR
———————————
NATALIE CROSBY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 230th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case Nos. 1495840, 1502867, 1521594
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Natalie Crosby, pleaded guilty without an agreed recommendation
from the State to the offenses of Fraudulent Use/Possession of Identifying
Information (trial court no. 1495840), Tampering with a Governmental Record (trial
court no. 1502867), and an additional count of Tampering with a Government Record
(trial court no. 1521594). Appellant was sentenced to 2 years’ confinement in a State
Jail facility for the offense of Fraudulent Use/Possession of Identifying Information,
and 14 years’ confinement in the TDCJ—Institutional Division for each of the
offenses of Tampering with a Governmental Record. 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 appeals are without merit and are 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 copies of the motion to
withdraw, the Anders brief, and the appellate record to appellant and informed
appellant of her right to file a pro se response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403,
2
408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant has not filed any pro se response to counsel’s
Anders brief and the deadline to file a response has expired.
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 judgments of the trial court and grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a). Attorney Inger H. Chandler 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 Higley, Brown, and Caughey.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4