Christopher Bradley Guthery v. State

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-16-00072-CR CHRISTOPHER BRADLEY GUTHERY, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 316th District Court

Hutchinson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10,781, Honorable William D. Smith, Presiding

October 19, 2016 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

Appellant, Christopher Bradley Guthery, was convicted by a jury of the offense of sexual assault.1 After hearing the punishment evidence, including appellant’s plea of “True” to allegation of one prior felony conviction, the jury assessed appellant’s punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for sixty-five years and a fine of $5,000. Appellant has perfected his appeal and we will affirm.

Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744-45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court’s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). The Court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Additionally, appellant’s counsel has certified that he has provided appellant with a motion to acquire a copy of the record to use in preparation of a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant has filed no response.

By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82-83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.2

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Mackey K. Hancock

Justice Do not publish.