Nathaniel Robert Collier v. State

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-18-00351-CR
NATHANIEL ROBERT COLLIER,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 54th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2017-1144-C2
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to an open plea, Nathaniel Robert Collier was convicted of aggravated
assault on a public servant and sentenced to 15 years in prison. See TEX. PENAL CODE
ANN. § 22.02.
Collier’s appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in
support of the motion to withdraw, asserting that the appeal presents no issues of
arguable merit. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
Counsel advised Collier that counsel had filed the motion and brief pursuant to Anders,
advised Collier of his right to review the record, and advised Collier of his right to submit
a response on his own behalf. Collier did not submit a response.
Counsel asserts in the Anders brief that counsel has made a thorough review of the
entire record, including the sufficiency of the evidence; discovery error, if any; adverse
ruling on trial counsel’s motion to withdraw; potential trial error, if any; Collier’s waiver
of rights; the reasonableness of the sentence; and the trial court’s judgment. After the
review, counsel concludes there is no non-frivolous issue to raise in this appeal.
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,
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).
Upon the filing of an Anders brief, as the reviewing appellate court, it is our duty
to independently examine the record to decide whether counsel is correct in determining
that an appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503,
511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Arguments are frivolous when they "cannot conceivably
persuade the court." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 436, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L.
Ed. 2d 440 (1988).
Having carefully reviewed the entire record and the Anders brief, we have
determined that this appeal is frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s Judgment of Conviction by
Collier v. State Page 2
Court—Waiver of Jury Trial signed on November 1, 2018.
Should Collier wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary
review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. No substitute counsel will
be appointed. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from
the date of this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en
banc reconsideration has been overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any
petition and all copies of the petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk
of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. (Tex. Crim. App. 1997, amended
eff. Sept. 1, 2011). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the
requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P.
68.4. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.
Counsel's motion to withdraw from representation of Collier is granted, and
counsel is discharged from representing Collier. Notwithstanding counsel’s discharge,
counsel must send Collier a copy of our decision, notify him of his right to file a pro se
petition for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter 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.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Collier v. State Page 3
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Neill
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed July 3, 2019
Do not publish
[CR25]
Collier v. State Page 4