James Earl Mason v. State ( 2012 )

Opinion issued December 6, 2012
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-12-00236-CR
____________
JAMES EARL MASON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 184th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1299656
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, James Earl Mason, pleaded guilty to the offense of murder,
without an agreed recommendation from the State regarding punishment. See TEX.
PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02 (West 2011). The trial court found appellant guilty, and
assessed punishment at 32 years’ confinement. The trial court certified that this is
not a plea bargain case and that appellant has the right to appeal. Appellant timely
filed a notice of appeal.
Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw,
along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and
therefore the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).
Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal
authority. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State,
573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has
thoroughly reviewed the record and that he is unable to advance any grounds of
error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell
v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
In his pro se response, appellant argues that the trial court should not have
accepted his plea of guilty because he was mentally incompetent. He also argues
that his trial counsel was ineffective for various reasons. Further, he argues that the
State withheld exculpatory evidence.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we
conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable
2
grounds for review, and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S.
at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—
determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly
frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)
(reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist);
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell,
193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds exist by
reviewing entire record). 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 affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.1 Attorney Franklin G. Bynum must immediately send the notice required
by Texas Rule of 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 Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
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 Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App.
1997).
3