Opinion
No. 06-16-00200-CR
05-17-2017
MARK CRAIG GENTRY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 5th District Court Cass County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2016F00045 Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted Mark Craig Gentry of theft of a firearm and assessed a sentence of two years' confinement in state jail, which the trial court imposed. Gentry appeals.
Gentry's attorney on appeal has filed a brief which states that she has reviewed the record and has found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised. The brief sets out the procedural history and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the proceeding. Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California, counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743-44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812-13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.
On February 1, 2017, counsel mailed to Gentry a copy of the brief, the appellate record, and the motion to withdraw. Gentry was informed of his right to review the record and file a pro se response. On February 1, 2017, this Court informed Gentry that his pro se response was due on or before March 3, 2017. On April 12, 2017, we further informed Gentry that the case had been set for submission on briefs, without oral argument, for May 3, 2017. Gentry has not filed a pro se response.
On February 22, 2017, this Court overruled Gentry's motion for appointment of new appellate counsel.
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record, and we agree that no arguable issue supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel's request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire 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 (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
Bailey C. Moseley
Justice Date Submitted: May 3, 2017
Date Decided: May 17, 2017 Do Not Publish