John Edward Britt v. the State of Texas

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-20-00106-CR JOHN EDWARD BRITT, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 320th District Court

Potter County, Texas

Trial Court No. 74,439-D, Honorable Pamela C. Sirmon, Presiding

July 8, 2021 MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

Appellant, John Edward Britt, was charged with aggravated robbery, 1 enhanced by a prior felony conviction.2 After a jury trial, the jury found appellant guilty. After a brief punishment hearing, the trial court found the enhancement allegation “true” and sentenced appellant to twenty years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. From this judgment, appellant appealed. 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 she has conducted a conscientious examination of the record and, in her 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 her 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 filed a response, which we have read. The State has not filed a brief.

By her 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.

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

Judy C. Parker

Justice Do not publish.