Document Info

DocketNumber: 01-18-00452-CR

Filed Date: 8/13/2019

Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/14/2019

  • Opinion issued August 13, 2019
    In The
    Court of Appeals
    For The
    First District of Texas
    ————————————
    NO. 01-18-00452-CR
    ———————————
    YANCY BOWEN LACROIX, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1
    Tarrant County, Texas
    Trial Court Case No. 1534672D
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Yancy Bowen Lacroix pleaded guilty without an agreed recommendation as
    to punishment to the state-jail-felony offense of possession of a controlled substance
    of less than one gram. The trial court sentenced Lacroix to 12 months in the State
    Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. See TEX. HEALTH &
    SAFETY CODE § 481.115(a), (b).
    On appeal, Lacroix’s appointed counsel has 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
    , 
    87 S. Ct. 1396
    (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
    , 87 S. Ct. at 1400; 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, 87 S. Ct. at 1400
    ; Mitchell v. State, 
    193 S.W.3d 153
    , 155
    (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
    Counsel advised Lacroix of his right to access the record and provided him
    with a form motion for access to the record. Counsel further advised Lacroix of his
    right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. Lacroix did not request access to
    the record and did not file 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, 87 S. Ct. at 1400
    2
    (emphasizing 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 William R. Biggs must immediately send Lacroix 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 Lloyd, Kelly, and Hightower.
    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