Marco Dane Joshua v. State

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-17-00034-CR
MARCO DANE JOSHUA,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 85th District Court
Brazos County, Texas
Trial Court No. 15-05246-CRF-85
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Marco Joshua entered a plea of guilty to the offense of possession of a controlled
substance. The trial court assessed punishment at two years confinement and a $500 fine.
The trial court suspended imposition of the confinement portion of the sentence and
placed Joshua on community supervision for four years. The State filed a motion to
revoke Joshua’s community supervision, and the trial court held a hearing on the motion.
Joshua pleaded true to violating Condition 1 of his community supervision. The trial
court revoked Joshua’s community supervision and sentenced Joshua to two years
confinement. We affirm.
Joshua’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief asserting that she has diligently
reviewed the appellate record and that, in her opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel informed Joshua of his right to submit a brief
on his own behalf. Joshua did not file a brief. Counsel's brief evidences a professional
evaluation of the record for error, and we conclude that counsel performed the duties
required of appointed counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008).
In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the
proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. at; 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 (1988). After a review of the entire record in this
appeal, we determine the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d
824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Counsel's request that she be allowed to withdraw from representation of Joshua
is granted. Additionally, counsel must send Joshua a copy of our decision, notify Joshua
of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter
Joshua v. State Page 2
certifying counsel's compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4.
TEX.R.APP.P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.
AL SCOGGINS
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed; motion granted
Opinion delivered and filed February 7, 2018
Do not publish
[CR25]
Joshua v. State Page 3