Willie Earnest Seals IV v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-20-00456-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
WILLIE EARNEST SEALS IV, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 440th District Court
of Coryell County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria
Appellant Willie Earnest Seals IV appeals his conviction for possession of a
controlled substance in penalty group 1 in an amount less than one gram, a state jail
felony enhanced for punishment by two prior state-jail felony convictions. See TEX.
HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(b); TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.425. A jury found
appellant guilty, and the trial court sentenced him to a ten-year term of imprisonment in
the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in accordance with
the jury’s assessed punishment. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.34. Appellant’s court-
appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738, 744 (1967). We affirm.
I. ANDERS BRIEF 1
Appellant’s appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support
in which he states that he has searched the record in detail and has found no non-frivolous
issues. See id. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a
thorough, professional evaluation of the record showing why there are no arguable
grounds for advancing an appeal. See ln re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“ln Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically
advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record
references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”
(citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343–44 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg
2003, no pet.))); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); see
also Jefferson v. State, No. 10-19-00206-CR, 2019 WL 6467322, at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco
Nov. 27, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014),
appellant’s counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no
1 This appeal was transferred to this Court from the Tenth Court of Appeals in Waco by order of
the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 22.220(a) (delineating the jurisdiction of appellate
courts); 73.001 (granting the supreme court the authority to transfer cases from one court of appeals to
another at any time that there is “good cause” for the transfer).
2
reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Appellant’s counsel also informed this Court
that he has: (1) notified appellant that he has filed an Anders brief and a motion to
withdraw, and attached those documents to his notice to appellant; (2) informed appellant
of his right to file a pro se response and to review the record preparatory to filing that
response; (3) informed appellant of his right to seek discretionary review if we conclude
that the appeal is frivolous 2; and (4) provided appellant with a copy of the record. 3 See
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3;
see also ln re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. An adequate time has passed, and
appellant has not filed a pro se response.
II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Penson v. Ohio,
488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. We have reviewed the record and
counsel’s brief, and we have found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d
824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in
the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for
reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule
of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.
2 Appellant’s counsel specifically informed appellant that “[u]pon the decision of [this Court he] may
have a right to file a [p]etition for [d]iscretionary [r]eview in the Court of Criminal Appeals.”
3 Counsel has informed this Court that he has provided appellant with a copy of the record. See
Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 320 n.22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Jefferson v. State, No. 10-19-
00206-CR, 2019 WL 6467322, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.—Waco Nov. 27, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not
designated for publication).
3
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, appellant’s appellate counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also ln re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17(citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“If an
attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the
appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to
withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is
frivolous.”). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this
opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to appellant and
to advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. 4 See TEX. R. APP. P.
48.4; see also ln re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d
670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
IV. CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
NORA L. LONGORIA
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed on the
16th day of December, 2021.
4 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant 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 file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed
within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion
for en banc reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for
discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals, see id. R. 68.3, and should
comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.
4