Vince Venard Chiles AKA Vince Vernard Chiles v. State

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-13-00024-CR
VINCE VENARD CHILES
AKA VINCE VERNARD CHILES,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 54th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2012-755-C2
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Vince Chiles pleaded guilty to the offense of burglary of a habitation. The jury
assessed punishment at confinement for life. We affirm.
Chiles’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief asserting that he has diligently
reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel informed Chiles of his right to submit
a brief on his own behalf, and Chiles filed a brief. However, we review a pro se brief or
other response solely to determine if there are any arguable grounds for appeal. Bledsoe
v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d
403, 409 n. 23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). 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, 386 U.S. at 744;
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, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988).
Arguments are frivolous when they "cannot conceivably persuade the court." Id. at 436.
An appeal is not wholly frivolous when it is based on "arguable grounds." Stafford, 813
S.W.2d at 511.
After reviewing the briefs, including Chiles’s pro se response, and 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.
Should Chiles 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. Any petition for
Chiles v. State Page 2
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 was
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 request that he be allowed to withdraw from representation of Chiles
is granted. Additionally, counsel must send Chiles a copy of our decision, notify Chiles
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.
AL SCOGGINS
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed; motion granted
Opinion delivered and filed September 5, 2013
Do not publish
[CRPM]
Chiles v. State Page 3