Quentez Javonta Brown v. State

In the
Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
at Fort Worth
___________________________
No. 02-18-00496-CR
___________________________
QUENTEZ JAVONTA BROWN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS
On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 2
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 1519910D
Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Quentez Javonta Brown appeals his conviction and related ten-year
sentence for robbery, a charge Brown pleaded guilty to after the State had initially
charged him with aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon (a firearm). See Tex. Penal
Code Ann. §§ 12.33, 29.02. We will affirm.
Brown’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as
counsel and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the
requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the
record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. 738,
744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). In compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel notified
Brown of his motion to withdraw, provided him a copy of the brief, informed him of
his right to file a pro se response, informed him of his pro se right to seek
discretionary review should this court hold the appeal is frivolous, and took concrete
measures to facilitate Brown’s review of the appellate record. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319
(Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Brown had the opportunity to file a pro se response to the
Anders brief, but he did not. The State submitted a letter stating that it would not be
filing a brief.
As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the
record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is
frivolous. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v.
State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may we
2
grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct.
346, 351 (1988).
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. We agree with
counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit—we find nothing in the
record that arguably might support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw
and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/s/ Dana Womack
Dana Womack
Justice
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered: August 26, 2019
3