Ricky Donnell Walker v. State

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-17-00107-CR
RICKY DONNELL WALKER, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 54th District Court
McLennan County, Texas1
Trial Court No. 2016-150-C2, Honorable Matt Johnson, Presiding
July 31, 2018
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ.
On February 27 and 28, 2017, appellant, Ricky Donnell Walker, was tried for the
offense of possession of prohibited substances in a correctional facility. 2 Appellant pled
not guilty and the case proceeded to a jury trial. After hearing evidence, the jury found
1 Pursuant to the Texas Supreme Court docket equalization efforts, this case was transferred to
this Court from the Tenth Court of Appeals. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2013). Should a
conflict exist between precedent of the Tenth Court of Appeals and this Court on any relevant issue, this
appeal will be decided in accordance with the precedent of the transferor court. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
2 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.11 (West Supp. 2017).
appellant guilty and, after a brief punishment hearing, sentenced appellant to fifteen
years’ incarceration in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice. Appellant timely filed his notice of appeal. We affirm.
Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw from the
representation supported by an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87
S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel
certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects
no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744; In re Schulman,
252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under
the controlling authorities, there are no reversible errors in the trial court’s judgment.
Counsel notified appellant by letter of his motion to withdraw; provided him a copy of the
motion, Anders brief, and appellate record; 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) (specifying
appointed counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an
Anders brief). By letter, this Court also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se
response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant has filed a pro se response. The State did
not file a brief.
In the present case, appellant was found guilty of the offense of possession of
prohibited substances in a correctional facility, and sentenced to fifteen years’
incarceration. By his Anders brief, counsel discusses areas in the record where reversible
error may have occurred but concludes that the appeal is frivolous. We have
independently examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous
2
issues that were preserved in the trial court which might support this appeal but, like
counsel, we have found no such issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.
Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State,
436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).
After carefully reviewing the appellate record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro
se response, we conclude there are no plausible grounds for appellate review. We
therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.3 See
TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a).
Judy C. Parker
Justice
Do not publish.
3 Even though appellant was informed of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review
upon execution of the Trial Court's Certification of Defendant's Right of Appeal, counsel must comply with
Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, which provides that counsel shall within five days
after this opinion is handed down, send appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment together with
notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408
n.22 & 411 n.35. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is ministerial in nature,
does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel's motion to
withdraw. Id. at 411 n.33.
3