Jaimel Demetrius Smith v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

Opinion issued August 22, 2023
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-22-00365-CR
———————————
JAIMEL DEMETRIUS SMITH, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 208th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1765558
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Jaimel Demetrius Smith, pleaded not guilty to the offense of
murder. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 19.02. Smith waived the right to a jury trial and
after a trial to the bench, the trial court signed a judgment of conviction for murder
and sentenced Smith to 55 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice.
On appeal, Smith’s appointed counsel 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 us with references to the record and legal
authority. 386 U.S. at 744; 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 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.). The State’s brief was originally due on March 24, 2022, but
despite notices that the brief was late, the State did not file a brief or waiver.
Counsel advised Smith of his right to access the record and provided him
with a form motion for access to the record. Counsel further advised Smith of his
right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. Smith requested and was granted
access to the record and he filed a pro se response to counsel’s brief.
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 (emphasizing
2
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 Adam Banks Brown must immediately send Smith 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.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Landau, and Farris.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
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