Micah Allen Walker A/K/A Micah Allen Walker v. State

NUMBER 13-11-470-CR COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

MICAH ALLEN WALKER A/K/A MICAH ALLEN WALKER, Appellant, v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 252nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Vela, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Vela Appellant, Micah Allen Walker a/k/a Micah Allen Walker, pleaded guilty to the offense of possession of a controlled substance. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.116 (West 2010).1 The trial court sentenced appellant to two years‘ confinement in the state jail division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant timely perfected this appeal, and as discussed below, his court-appointed counsel filed an Anders brief. We affirm.

I. ANDERS BRIEF Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant‘s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Counsel‘s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (―In 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 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), appellant‘s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there are no reversible errors in the trial court‘s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal; (2) served a copy of the brief and counsel‘s motion to withdraw on appellant; and (3) informed appellant of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response.2 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate period of time has passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel‘s brief, and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. 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 requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.‖); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.3 There is no reversible error in the record. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW In accordance with Anders, appellant‘s attorney asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In 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.) (―[i]f 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.‖) (citations omitted)). We grant counsel‘s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court‘s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court‘s 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 In 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 The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Rose Vela Justice

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 20th day of October, 2011.