Raymond Lynch v. State ( 2019 )

Opinion issued October 29, 2019.
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-18-00796-CR
———————————
RAYMOND LYNCH, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 351st District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1528664
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Raymond Lynch, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of
aggravated robbery, using and exhibiting a firearm. TEX. PENAL CODE § 29.03(a),
(b). Appellant signed an acknowledgement that the punishment range was “a term
of life or any term of not more than 99 years or less than 5 years” in prison and a
possible fine up to $10,000. He also acknowledged in writing that he was mentally
competent and understood the nature of the charge against him. He was sentenced
to 20 years’ confinement in 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 (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. 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 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.). In his pro se response, appellant contends that the trial court’s
disregard of his Motion to Dismiss Court Appointed Attorney and Appoint New
Counsel was an abuse of discretion.
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 (emphasizing
that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of
2
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 Attorneys Alexander Bunin and Melissa Martin 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 Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Countiss.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
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