Opinion
07-22-00141-CR
04-28-2023
FREDERICK DEWAYNE MARSH, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
Do not publish.
On Appeal from the 251st District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court No. 75,237-C-CR, Honorable Ana Estevez, Presiding
Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Judy C. Parker Justice
A jury convicted Appellant Frederick Dewayne Marsh of the offense of forgery.Appellant pleaded "true" to two prior felony convictions alleged for enhancement purposes. The trial court assessed Appellant's punishment at imprisonment for a term of twenty-five years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant's appointed counsel on appeal has filed an Anders brief in support of a motion to withdraw. We affirm the judgment and grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.21(b), (e).
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that he has conducted a conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under the controlling authorities, the record presents no reversible error. In a letter to Appellant, counsel notified him of his motion to withdraw; provided him with a copy of the motion, Anders brief, and appellate record; and informed him of his right to file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying appointed counsel's obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief). By letter, this Court also advised Appellant of his right to file a pro se response to counsel's Anders brief. Appellant has filed a response which we have considered. The State has not filed a brief.
By his Anders brief, counsel evaluates the entirety of the proceedings from voir dire through the assessment of punishment. He candidly concedes there are no errors on which relief may be granted. We have independently examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Following our review of the appellate record and counsel's brief, we conclude there are no grounds for appellate review that would result in reversal of Appellant's conviction or sentence.
We affirm the trial court's judgment and grant counsel's motion to withdraw. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(a).
Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of Appellant's right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 48.4. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel's motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33.