Jefferson Layug Blakemore v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

Opinion issued July 20, 2023
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-22-00634-CR
———————————
JEFFERSON LAYUG BLAKEMORE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 228th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1711787
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The trial court found appellant, Jefferson Layug Blakemore, guilty of the
felony offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child1 and assessed his punishment
at confinement for thirty years. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.02(b), (h).
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 (1967).
Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record and supplying the Court with references to the record and
legal authority. See id. at 744; 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; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2006, no pet.).
Counsel has informed the Court that she provided appellant with a copy of the
brief, the motion to withdraw, and the appellate record. Counsel has also informed
appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a response to counsel’s
Anders brief, and she provided appellant with a form motion to access the appellate
record.2 See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). On February 27, 2023,
2
This Court also notified appellant that counsel had filed an Anders brief and a
motion to withdraw and informed appellant that he had a right to examine the
appellate record and file a response to his counsel’s Anders brief. And this Court
provided appellant with a form motion to access the appellate record. See Kelly v.
State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
2
appellant filed a letter, which we construe as a pro se response to his counsel’s
Anders brief.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in the appeal, and we
conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds
for review, and the appeals is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing
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 appellant
may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for an 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.
Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant appellant’s appointed
counsel’s motion to withdraw.3 Attorney Daucie Schindler must immediately send
3
Appellant’s appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of
this appeal and that appellant 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
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). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.
Julie Countiss
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Countiss.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
4