Cody Carlson v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • Opinion issued June 11, 2024
    In The
    Court of Appeals
    For The
    First District of Texas
    ————————————
    NO. 01-23-00915-CR
    ———————————
    CODY CARLSON, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 56th Judicial District Court
    Galveston County, Texas
    Trial Court Case No. 23CR1218
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Cody Carlson was charged with assault causing bodily injury to a member of
    his family.1 Included in the indictment was an allegation that Carlson was previously
    1
    See TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.01(a)(1).
    convicted of a similar assault, which raised the underlying offense to a third-degree
    felony.2 The indictment also included two enhancement paragraphs, each alleging
    that Carlson had a prior felony conviction, which made him eligible for punishment
    as a habitual offender.3
    A jury found Carlson guilty as charged in the indictment and found the
    enhancement allegations true.      It assessed his punishment at confinement for
    thirty-five years.
    On appeal, Carlson’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, along
    with an Anders brief, stating that the record presents no reversible error and that the
    appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 744
    (1967).
    In his brief, counsel states that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and is
    unable to advance any ground of error that warrants reversal. See id.; In re Schulman,
    
    252 S.W.3d 403
    , 406–08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Mitchell v. State, 
    193 S.W.3d 153
    ,
    155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). His brief meets the Anders
    requirements because it presents a professional evaluation of the record and supplies
    2
    See 
    id.
     § 22.01(b)(2)(A); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. § 42.013; TEX. FAM.
    CODE §§ 71.003, 71.004.
    3
    See TEX. PENAL CODE § 12.42(d).
    2
    this Court with references to the record and legal authority. See Anders, 
    386 U.S. at 744
    ; see also High v. State, 
    573 S.W.2d 807
    , 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
    Further, Carlson’s counsel informed this Court that he mailed a copy of the
    motion to withdraw and Anders brief to Carlson and informed him of his right to file
    a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 
    436 S.W.3d 313
    , 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App.
    2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09. Counsel also informed Carlson of
    his right to access the appellate record and provided him with a form motion for pro
    se access.4 See Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20.
    Subsequently, the district clerk notified this Court that it sent a copy of the
    record to Carlson. Carlson did not file a pro se response to the Anders brief.
    The State filed a waiver of its right to file a response to the Anders brief.
    We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal. See Mitchell,
    
    193 S.W.3d at 155
    . We conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that
    there are no arguable grounds for review, and that the appeal is frivolous. See Anders,
    
    386 U.S. at 744
     (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines,
    after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner
    4
    This Court also notified Carlson that his counsel filed a motion to withdraw and
    Anders brief, informed Carlson of his right to access the record and file a response,
    and provided him with a form motion to access the record. See Kelly v. State, 
    436 S.W.3d 313
    , 321–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
    3
    v. State, 
    300 S.W.3d 763
    , 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 
    178 S.W.3d 824
    , 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
    We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to
    withdraw.5 See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a). Attorney Joel H. Bennett must immediately
    send the required notice and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this Court.
    See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.
    PER CURIAM
    Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Kelly and Goodman.
    Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
    5
    Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform Carlson of the result of this appeal and
    that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal
    Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 
    178 S.W.3d 824
    , 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
    An appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal
    by filing a petition for discretionary review. See 
    id.
     at 827 n.6.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-23-00915-CR

Filed Date: 6/11/2024

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/17/2024