Jermaine Earl Sexton v. State

Opinion issued December 19, 2013
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-13-00139-CR
———————————
JERMAINE EARL SEXTON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 339th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1370117
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found appellant, Jermaine Earl Sexton, guilty of the offense of
aggravated robbery. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03 (West 2011). Appellant
pleaded “not true” to the allegations in two enhancement paragraphs. The trial
court found the two enhancements true and sentenced appellant to thirty-five years’
confinement. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(d) (West Supp. 2013).
Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.
Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal 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. See Anders, 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 has also informed us that he delivered a copy of the brief to
appellant and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file
a response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
In his pro se response, appellant complains of his counsel’s representation
and that the witnesses were in cahoots with each other.
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 (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 (same).
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.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s
motion to withdraw.1 Attorney Jerome Godinich, Jr. must immediately send
appellant the required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this
Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Massengale.
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).