Richard Garner v. State ( 2015 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-15-00034-CR
RICHARD GARNER,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 52nd District Court
Coryell County, Texas
Trial Court No. FAM-13-21669
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Richard Garner pleaded no contest to the offense of aggravated assault with a
deadly weapon. The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed Garner on
community supervision for three years. On September 29, 2014, the State filed a motion
to adjudicate. After a hearing, the trial court found some of the allegations to be true,
convicted Garner of the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and
assessed punishment at fifteen years confinement. We affirm.
Garner’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief asserting that he has diligently
reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel informed Garner of his right to submit a brief
on his own behalf. Garner did not file a brief, and the State did not file a response.
Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error, and we
conclude that counsel performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see
also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the
proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. at; accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal
is "wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v.
Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10 (1988). After a review of the entire record in this
appeal, we determine the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d
824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Counsel's request that he be allowed to withdraw from representation of Garner
is granted. Additionally, counsel must send Garner a copy of our decision, notify Garner
of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter
certifying counsel's compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4.
TEX.R.APP.P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.
Garner v. State Page 2
AL SCOGGINS
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed; motion granted
Opinion delivered and filed August 20, 2015
Do not publish
[CR25]
Garner v. State Page 3