William Harvey Epperly, III v. State ( 2012 )

Opinion issued June 21, 2012.
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-10-00306-CR
———————————
WILLIAMS HARVEY EPPERLY III, A/K/A WILLIAM HARVEY
EPPERLY III, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 174th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1220035
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Williams Harvey EpperlyIII was charged with the third-degree
felony of failure to register as a sex offender. SeeTEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.
ANN.art. 62.102(a), (b)(2) (West 2006).Epperly pleaded guilty without an agreed
recommendation for punishment. The trial court sentenced Epperly to five years
in the institutional division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice but
suspended the sentence and placed Epperly on community supervision for five
years.
Epperly’sappointed 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 indicates that
he has thoroughly reviewed the record and that he is unable to advance any ground
of error that warrants 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 addition, counsel’s brief reflects that he delivered a copy of the brief to
Epperlyand informed him of his right to examine the appellate record andto file a
response.SeeIn reSchulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
Appellant has not filed a pro se response.
2
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, 766–67 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (explaining
that frivolity is determined by considering whether there are ―arguable grounds‖
for review); 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 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 at 827 & n.6.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.1Appellant’s counsel,Terrence Gaiser, 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.SeeTEX. 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 Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27
(Tex.Crim.App.2005).
3
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Higley, Sharp, and Huddle.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4