Yancy Bowen Lacroix v. State ( 2019 )

Opinion issued August 13, 2019
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-18-00453CR
———————————
YANCY BOWEN LACROIX, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1480734D
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In accordance with a plea bargain with the State, Yancy Bowen Lacroix
pleaded guilty to the offense of possession with intent to deliver a controlled
substance of four grams or more, but less than 200 grams, and was sentenced on
June 30, 2017 to 10 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice. The sentence was suspended and Lacroix was placed on
community supervision for 10 years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke
community supervision. Lacroix pleaded true to the violations without an agreed
recommendation as to punishment. The trial court sentenced Lacroix to 12 months
in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. See TEX.
HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.115(a), (b).
On appeal, Lacroix’s appointed counsel 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 Lacroix of his right to access the record and provided him
with a form motion for access to the record. Counsel further advised Lacroix of his
2
right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. Lacroix did not request access to
the record and did not file a pro se response to counsel’s brief.
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
(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.1 Attorney William R. Biggs must immediately send Lacroix 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.
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 Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
3
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Lloyd, Kelly, and Hightower.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4