Christopher Bradley Young v. State ( 2014 )

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-14-00045-CR
Christopher Bradley Young, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 71001, THE HONORABLE JOHN GAUNTT, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
After a bench trial, the trial court found appellant Christopher Bradley Young guilty
of evading detention with a vehicle, see Tex. Penal Code § 38.04, and, pursuant to the repeat
offender provision of the Penal Code, assessed appellant’s punishment at confinement in the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice for five years, see id. § 12.42(a).
Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a
brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of
Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there
are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967);
Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,
81–82 (1988).
Appellant’s counsel has represented to this Court that she sent copies of the motion
and brief to appellant, advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro
se response, and provided a motion to assist appellant in obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State,
436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Appellant
requested access to the appellate record, and pursuant to this Court’s order the clerk of the trial court
provided written verification to this Court that the record was provided to appellant. See Kelly,
436 S.W.3d at 321. To date, appellant has not filed a pro se response or requested an extension of
time to file a response.
We have conducted an independent review of the record and find no reversible error.
See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27
(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious
grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. The
judgment of conviction is affirmed.
__________________________________________
J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin
Affirmed
Filed: September 17, 2014
Do Not Publish
2