Randy Joel McDonald v. State ( 2015 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-14-00359-CR
RANDY JOEL MCDONALD, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 47th District Court
Potter County, Texas
Trial Court No. 66,629-A, Honorable Dan L. Schaap, Presiding
May 6, 2015
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
Appellant, Randy Joel McDonald, was indicted for and subsequently convicted
of unlawful possession of a firearm1 and sentenced to five years’ incarceration in the
Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant has
appealed and we will affirm.
Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw.
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 46.04(a)(1) (West 2011).
of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record,
and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be
predicated. Id. at 744-45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities,
there is no error in the trial court’s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he
has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and
appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter.
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The Court has also
advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Additionally, appellant’s counsel
has certified that he has provided appellant with a copy of the record to use in
preparation of a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2014). Appellant has filed a pro se response. Our review of this response,
leads to the conclusion that it does not present an arguable ground for appeal.
By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an
appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and
made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any
arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,
109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the
appeal is frivolous.2
2
Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the
opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary
review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.
2
Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court’s
judgment is affirmed.
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
3