Shawn Dunn v. State ( 2012 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-11-00047-CR
SHAWN DUNN,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 52nd District Court
Coryell County, Texas
Trial Court No. FR-10-20260
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found Shawn Dunn guilty of the felony offense of aggravated robbery
with a deadly weapon, and the trial court assessed a seventy-year prison sentence.
Dunn appealed. Dunn’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw
and an Anders brief, asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and
that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.
1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
In an Anders case, we must, “after a full examination of all the proceedings, []
decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400;
accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is
“wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy
v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n.10, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440
(1988).
Dunn filed a pro se response to the Anders brief.1 We find that it does not raise
any potentially arguable issues. And we have conducted an independent review of the
record, and because we find this appeal to be wholly frivolous, we affirm the judgment.
Counsel must send Dunn a copy of our decision by certified mail, return receipt
requested, at Dunn’s last known address. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. Counsel must also notify
Dunn of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Id.; see also Ex parte
Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673-74 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw, effective upon counsel’s compliance with this notification requirement as
evidenced by “a letter [to this Court] certifying his compliance.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.
REX D. DAVIS
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed; motion to reverse denied
Opinion delivered and filed March 21, 2012
Do not publish
[CRPM]
1 Dunn’s pro se motion to reverse conviction for improper grand jury procedures is denied.
Dunn v. State Page 2