Charles William Self v. State ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                    IN THE
    TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
    No. 10-09-00034-CR
    CHARLES WILLIAM SELF,
    Appellant
    v.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,
    Appellee
    From the 77th District Court
    Limestone County, Texas
    Trial Court No. 11513-A
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Charles William Self pled guilty to the first-degree felony offense of aggravated
    sexual assault of a child, and after a punishment hearing, was sentenced by the trial
    court to forty years in prison.
    Self’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and 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
    , 
    87 S. Ct. 1396
    , 
    18 L. Ed. 2d 493
    (1967). Although informed of his right to do so, Self did not file a pro se brief or
    response. The State did not file a brief. We will affirm.
    In an Anders case, we must, “after a full examination of all the proceedings, []
    decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” 
    Anders, 386 U.S. at 744
    , 87 S.Ct. at 1400;
    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, 
    108 S. Ct. 1895
    , 1902 n.10, 
    100 L. Ed. 2d 440
    (1988).
    We have conducted an independent review of the record, and because we find
    this appeal to be wholly frivolous, we affirm the judgment. Counsel must send Self a
    copy of our decision by certified mail, return receipt requested, at Self’s last known
    address. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. Counsel must also notify Self of his right to file a pro se
    petition for discretionary review. Id.; see also Ex parte Owens, 
    206 S.W.3d 670
    , 673-74
    (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).       We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, effective upon
    counsel’s compliance with the aforementioned notification requirement as evidenced by
    “a letter [to this Court] certifying his compliance.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.
    REX D. DAVIS
    Justice
    Self v. State                                                                       Page 2
    Before Chief Justice Gray,
    Justice Reyna, and
    Justice Davis
    (Chief Justice Gray concurs in the judgment to the extent it affirms the trial
    court’s judgment only. A separate opinion will not issue.)
    Affirmed
    Opinion delivered and filed December 8, 2010
    Do not publish
    [CRPM]
    Self v. State                                                                  Page 3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-09-00034-CR

Filed Date: 12/8/2010

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015