Jerry C. Herron v. State ( 2012 )

Opinion issued September 20, 2012.
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NOS. 01-11-00679-CR
01-11-00680-CR
———————————
JERRY C. HERRON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 23rd District Court
Brazoria County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 61,521
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Jerry C. Herron was indicted for continuous sexual abuse of a
young child and aggravated sexual assault. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 21.02,
22.021 (West Supp. 2012). Herron pleaded not guilty. A jury found Herron guilty
of both charges and assessed punishment at 99 years for the continuous sexual
abuse charge and 20 years for the aggravated assault, which the trial court ordered
him to serve consecutively.
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. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also
High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel discusses the
evidence adduced at the trial, supplies us with references to the record, and
provides us with citation to legal authorities. 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, 154 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no
pet.).
In addition, counsel’s brief reflects that he delivered a copy of the brief to
appellant and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file
2
a response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
Appellant has not filed a pro se response.
We have independently reviewed the entire record, and we conclude that no
reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable grounds for review,
and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at
1400; Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (explaining
that frivolity is determined by considering whether there are “arguable grounds”
for review); See 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); Mitchell, 193
S.W.3d at 155. 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 827 & n.6.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.1 Attorney Perry Stevens 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). We dismiss all pending motions as
moot.
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 Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 674 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2006).
3
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4