Chad Lee Brubaker v. State ( 2015 )

Opinion issued October 29, 2015
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-15-00035-CR
———————————
CHAD LEE BRUBAKER, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 411th District Court
Polk County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 23075
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Chad Lee Brubaker, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of
aggravated assault and true to enhancement allegations of two prior felony
convictions. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.42(d) (West Supp. 2014);
22.02(a)(1) (West 2011). In accordance with appellant’s plea-bargain agreement
with the State, the trial court found sufficient evidence to find appellant guilty, but
deferred making any finding regarding appellant’s guilt and placed appellant on
community supervision for a period of ten years. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN.
art. 42.12 § 5(a) (West Supp. 2014). The State subsequently filed a motion to
adjudicate appellant’s guilt, alleging that appellant violated the terms of his
community supervision. See id. §§ 5(b), 21(e). Appellant pleaded not true to the
alleged violation. The trial court found the State’s allegations true, adjudicated
appellant guilty, and sentenced appellant to thirty years’ imprisonment. See id.
§§ 5(b), 21(b), 23. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.
Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw,
along with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and 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 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that she 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; Mitchell v. State,
193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
2
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we
conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds
for review, and 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). We
note that an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds
for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas 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 Jennifer L. Bergman must immediately send appellant the
required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX.
R. APP. P. 6.5(c).
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
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4