Tajuan Murtez Dent v. State

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-20-00044-CR TAJUAN MURTEZ DENT, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 415th District Court

Parker County, Texas1

Trial Court No. CR19-0488, Honorable Roy Graham Quisenberry, Presiding

March 11, 2021 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ.

Tajuan Murtez Dent, appellant, was charged with evading arrest with a previous conviction for evading arrest, enhanced by prior convictions.2 Appellant entered an open plea of guilty to the charge and pled “true” to the allegation of prior convictions. The trial court sentenced appellant to nine years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. This appeal followed.

Appellant’s counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders3 brief. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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. Anders, 386 U.S. 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 not filed a response. The State has not filed a brief.

By his Anders brief, counsel discusses areas in the record where reversible error may have occurred but concludes that the appeal is frivolous. 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 but, like counsel, we have found no such issues. 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 plausible grounds for appellate review.

Therefore, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.4 The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Judy C. Parker

Justice Do not publish.