Martin K. Edwards v. State ( 2017 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-16-00226-CR
MARTIN K. EDWARDS,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 52nd District Court
Coryell County, Texas
Trial Court No. 15-23103
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Upon his open plea of guilty, the trial court convicted Martin K. Edwards of the
offense of online solicitation of a minor. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. 33.021(c) (West 2016).
The trial court assessed punishment at 7 years confinement. We affirm.
Edwards’s retained counsel adopted an Anders brief filed by Edwards’s former
appointed attorney. The Anders brief filed stated that counsel 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 Edwards of his right to submit a brief on his own
behalf. Edwards did not file a brief. Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation
of the record for error, and we conclude that counsel performed the duties required of
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 Edwards
is granted. Additionally, counsel must send Edwards a copy of our decision, notify
Edwards 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.
Edwards v. State Page 2
AL SCOGGINS
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed; motion granted
Opinion delivered and filed April 19, 2017
Do not publish
[CR25]
Edwards v. State Page 3