Ross, Darrick Edward ( 2015 )

C*<90#jm No. iD-w-ooa/q-cK
PaAIT, no-. lo-N-ooKto-w 0R|G|NAL
5%0-IS §
v/1
§ RECEIVED IN
5fflT£ Of TeKflS c COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
| JUN 22 2015
AbelAcosta,Clerk
fnoM the a.Tg-m DiyrmcT Cotter
TR-i a L Couer N06 . 3.^3 S3 /ko #U>/?
l«j Tf-ft TeKlTM tOu&T of f\PP£fil5
petition -Fofc Oi56eeTioM/i2V (Levied
FILED IN
CLfi MbTio*!6 -ft* fet/ieu
feasor -fc/i fel/iEU
3
PRAVE/l
iNQg)t of fluTi-i oemes
6*0*5 V/ 5TAT6 3g0 5iU)<3J ,B| fo^ppj __J^
6
Toiierr v/ Ueuoensohi
JZ
Tzi, hml toot lm Each m«. (a R« 1835 3 RA 4). THf
TeriTu courr 0f appeals flffinweo 0m Rpm l <\, Slciy.
IV
The TtUTH Couev of Appeals re/^ereA 1-V5 decision.
ft-KVrrTing flpp^ lUn{'f5 conuicAion 00 Af>r»\ 1, 2.016,
ft Motion Fofc Cchtarlm uoa5 -Wed ~3uno I, A for £ev/ i&o
(i) 15 A Plea c£ 6iail+U renckrei irwaftd u}hen The frial
Court do€6 not hold a heartha oe. Oralla admoni6h
Appellant om 4he Ccnt>e^iKnd plea.?
(a) Aa6 4-he Appellate- Court erred in -(Wina mo Araaable
l^£ -for Appeal ?
(3) Ha5 The Appellate court cffcA in 4Win<* fdo arguable
issuer -fix- Appeal on 4he Lc^al 6u££»eienciA o-£
Whence, 'issuer?
cv-0
-Reasons for fenevo
Question one should be rt^ituxA due Ao Ahe record, on Appeal
not shouoina Ahai ev/en a Wearing u0«5 hj Ahe couet. Due cour5C o-P
Wuo an A Oae Proct56 uncW feoAh Tf*acrv during pumsKment Vwrina (2££*H); Ahe Record
Shouo
Appellant haAbeen charged uo\Ah (WrAv/*tted febbc^ ante I
he ajrnveA at Ahe pun\^n rnent hearing, (_«3 ££^o) |Ae al^o
d»A not knouo Ahat Appellant hai been \n fV\^or\ -fer
A^rav/ated £cbber not Support a -finding
Ahat (Appellant ioae> table -fcr ^he conduct e£ TauW and
5colt because tyyttc Vb no evidence. AppeUarvt dvd ana of
Ahe acte vohieh Action n.o£(<*) ot «Vhe Penal Code
vOoali vvvyfo^e ehM\nal liab'dvAa on Appellant. XA uxi€>
deficient perAarrnance Ao Perrnrt Appellant \o Plead
cV^lA^ vADhen A^>e -evidence uoa.5 Iftydlu msu^f ievent
4o ^buopoet Arhe conviict\on, X-V ^a^ aVoo incompetent
a*s
THAT flPPfLU,T TOLO T.yW fl«o 5«TT fl6ouT THf ,W5U^,"
PARENTS *,.*, R.US Hfl0 Gom^ fiMQ; ^ fl ^£p^flTe
Occ«5,oM,pDlMTe0 0UT " Riu5 L(wo> CaR<{l3,.W|,)
To SuPP0CT TM,r cu.m. Mr,™* u.,T«f9s To T„e ei/fMT "
£0 THAT T£5T/M0fclY, fO QQ Dli nQ-nq) _
THftT fipP£^T p" ^ ^ ^ THf ^ ^
500 ^.u ad 837 cr^.mmn THW ^ N;r^r
AP*U,,r 5ol,c,TCO, e«roM«o, <>,«««,, *,oeo 0* ^W5 r0
T T° ^ ^ ™ ^ofifiE^ of f,li£5
WrrH THf OJTrUT To P&moTe ne a^,50H5 - tDNJT
1),u,S.i AT 3pa . -fHEfce uJ/)5 e» e\noente TUar 5corr tolo
fippeiifl^r of H(5 ,^ur To ^6 Twe fcus ^2 R* /Vo_)
nC ' ' 5 ^'©e^e fHLS SHoer
+01 THE COMOUCT of „
*™>* 1.02(a) 0frH£
'"suffice -r < f n"° '5 I***"*
Aa?ft»wra> &^y
ft n /5 kHTlTLBD To
to^c£ o^-ora of " ^SE "
(l-i)
Hefl50N$ - CoNT
IT W« .NCOMPffl^T fl0l/,tf flN0 Officii PafDCMfl,c£ ro
Permit wautrr to Puao GuitTy \^Uen the evidence
WA6 Legally iNsu-frme-wr to 5uPPoicr -me Conviction", the
Pl£fl Wfl^ NOT KMOUJ.HGLy, IttTtlLSeNTli OH VoLumvLi
ENT^EO, 5££ ToUerr y H^Q^oM 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396,1400,18 L. Ed. 2d
493 (1967),-appellant's court-appointed appellate counsel filed briefs and motions to
withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of
error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Counsel's briefs meet the requirements
of Anders as they present a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no
arguable grounds to advance on appeal in both cases. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d
403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) ("In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically
advance 'arguable' points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record
references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.")
(citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343-44 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no
pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc).
In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978), appellant's counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling
authority, there are no reversible errors in the trial court's judgments. Counsel has
informed this Court that, for both cases, he has: (1) examined the record and found no
arguable grounds to advance on appeal; (2) served a copy of the brief and counsel's
motion to withdraw on appellant; and (3) informed appellant of his right to review the
Ex parte Ross *a8e 2
record and to file a pro se response.1 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400;
Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. Appellant
has filed a pro se response in both cases.2 See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.
II. Independent Review
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 349-50, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have reviewed the entire
record, counsel's brief, and appellant's pro se response in both cases and have found
nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ("Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the
opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for
reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule
of Appellate Procedure 47.1."); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. Accordingly, the judgments
of the trial court are affirmed.
III. Motion to Withdraw
In accordance with Anders, appellant's attorney has asked this Court for
permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at
1The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that "'the pro se response need not comply with
the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the
court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether
the case presents any meritorious issues.'" In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App.
2008) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App.-Waco 1997, no pet.)).
2Nowhere in the record or in the documents received by the Court does appellant suggest that he
wants or sought the record but was unable to obtain it. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 321-22 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2014).
Ex parte Ross Page 3
1400; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776,
779-80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) ("If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous,
he must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation,
the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing
the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.") (citations omitted)). We grant
counsel's motions to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court's opinion,
counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court's judgments to
appellant and to advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review.3 See
Tex. R. App. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206
S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
AL SCOGGINS
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed April 9, 2015
Do not publish
[CRPM]
3 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this
case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for
discretionary review or must file a pro se petitionfor discretionary review. Any petitionfor discretionary
review must be filed within thirty days from the date of this opinion or the last timely motion for
rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration was overruled by this Court. See Tex. R. App. P.
68.2. Any petition and all copies of the petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of
the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. at R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply
with the requirements of rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. at R. 68.4; see also In
re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.
Ex parte Ross Page 4
Ex parte Ross Page 5