Keith Lamont Taylor v. State ( 2012 )

Opinion issued December 13, 2012
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-12-00268-CR
———————————
KEITH LAMONT TAYLOR, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from County Criminal Court at Law No. 12
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1789842
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted appellant, Keith Lamont Taylor, of the misdemeanor
offense of assault of a family member and assessed punishment at confinement for
10 days. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(a)(1) (West 2011); TEX. FAM. CODE
ANN. § 71.0021 (West Supp. 2012), § 71.004(3) (West 2008). Appellant’s
appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief,
stating that the record presents no reversible error and that, therefore, the appeal is
frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). We
grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
An attorney has an ethical obligation to refuse to prosecute a frivolous
appeal. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). If an
appointed attorney finds a case to be wholly frivolous, his obligation to his client is
to seek leave to withdraw. Id. Counsel’s duty to the appellate court is to assure it,
through an Anders brief, that, after a complete review of the record, the request to
withdraw is well-founded. Id.
Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record. See id. Counsel discusses the evidence adduced, supplies
us with record references, and provides us with citation to legal authorities. See id.
at 411; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel
indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and is unable to advance any
grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at
1400; Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 406–07; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
The brief also reflects that counsel delivered a copy of the brief to appellant
and informed him of his right to examine the record and to file a response. See
2
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408. More than 30 days have passed, and appellant has
not filed a pro se response. See id. at 409 n.23 (adopting 30-day period for
response). The State waived its opportunity to file an appellee’s brief.
We have independently reviewed the record, and we conclude that no
reversible error exists, that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that the
appeal is frivolous. See id. at 407 n.12 (explaining that appeal is frivolous when it
does not present argument that could “conceivably persuade the court”); Bledsoe v.
State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (emphasizing that
reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of
proceedings, whether the appeal is wholly frivolous). Although we may issue an
opinion explaining why the appeal lacks arguable merit, we are not required to do
so. See Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). An
appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by
filing a petition for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See
Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.
We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw1 and affirm the appeal. Attorney
Mark C. Kratovil must immediately send the notice required by Texas Rule of
1
Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal
and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005).
3
Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this
Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Sharp.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4