A'Ventae Vernard Mathis v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-21-00027-CR

A’VENTAE VERNARD MATHIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 336th District Court

Fannin County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR-19-26964

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss MEMORANDUM OPINION

While A’Ventae Vernard Mathis was on community supervision for possessing a controlled substance in a correctional facility,1 the State moved to revoke his community supervision on the ground that he evaded arrest. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found the State’s allegation true, granted the State’s motion, and sentenced Mathis to ten years’ confinement. Mathis appeals.

Mathis’s attorney has filed a brief stating that she has reviewed the record and found no genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the trial court proceedings. Providing a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, counsel has met the requirements of Anders v. California. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.

On June 22, 2021, counsel mailed to Mathis copies of the brief, the appellate record, and the motion to withdraw. Mathis was informed of his rights to review the record and file a pro se response. By letter dated June 23, this Court informed Mathis that any pro se response was due on or before July 23. On August 3, this Court further informed Mathis that the case would be set for submission on the briefs on August 24. We received neither a pro se response from Mathis nor a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response.

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial court’s judgment. Id.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.2

Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: August 24, 2021

Date Decided: September 14, 2021

Do Not Publish