Quinton Jamal Turner v. State ( 2014 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-13-00143-CR
QUINTON JAMAL TURNER, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 140th District Court
Lubbock County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2012-433,789, Honorable Jim Bob Darnell, Presiding
February 18, 2014
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
After a jury trial,1 appellant Quinton Jamal Turner was convicted of burglary of a
habitation.2 Punishment was assessed by the trial court at imprisonment for a period of
1
The record indicates appellant planned to enter a plea of guilty to the offense
charged in the indictment. The State, however, objected and asserted its right to a jury
trial. A trial was held and, after evidence was presented, the jury found appellant guilty.
Appellant testified at the punishment hearing, confessing to the burglary of a habitation.
He had several prior offenses, evidence of which was received during the punishment
phase of trial. Appellant stipulated to each.
2
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(c)(2) (West 2012).
ninety-nine years. His court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw
and an Anders3 brief. We will grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
A homeowner testified he caught appellant in the act of burglarizing his home.
After a short car chase by police, appellant was arrested. Items taken from the home
were found in the car. Appellant confessed to the burglary at the time of arrest, and,
after receiving statutory warnings, gave an oral, recorded confession to police. During
the punishment hearing, appellant judicially confessed to committing the burglary of a
habitation as charged in the indictment. Appellant also stipulated to his prior convictions
that were used for enhancement of his punishment.
Appellant filed notice of appeal. Thereafter, appellant's appointed appellate
counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support pursuant to Anders in which he
certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record and, in his professional opinion,
under the controlling authorities and facts of the case, there is no reversible error or
legitimate ground on which a non-frivolous appeal can arguably be predicated. The brief
discusses in detail the procedural history of the case and the events at trial. Counsel
discusses the applicable law and sets forth the reasons he believes there are no
arguably meritorious issues on which to appeal. Counsel has certified that a copy of the
Anders brief and motion to withdraw have been served on appellant, and that counsel
has advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se response.
Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641, 645 (Tex. App.—Waco 1994, pet. ref'd). By letter,
3
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); see
In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
2
this Court also notified appellant of his opportunity to submit a response to the Anders
brief and motion to withdraw filed by his counsel. Appellant has filed a response raising
several issues.
In conformity with the standards set out by the United States Supreme Court, we
will not rule on counsel’s motion to withdraw until we have independently examined the
record. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.). If
this Court determines the appeal arguably has merit, we will remand it to the trial court
for appointment of new counsel. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.
App.1991).
By his Anders brief, counsel raises eight grounds that could possibly support an
appeal, but explains why he concludes none show arguable reversible error. He
concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have also considered appellant’s pro se
response. We have reviewed each ground raised by counsel and appellant 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 supporting a claim of reversible error, and
agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.
3
Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion to withdraw4 and affirm the judgment of
the trial court.
James T. Campell
Justice
Do not publish.
4
Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client
a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant's right to file
a pro se petition for discretionary review. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.
4