Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas No. 10-24-00010-CR

Joshua Baust, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

On appeal from the 87th District Court of Freestone County, Texas Judge Amy Thomas Ward, presiding Trial Court No. 23-019CR CHIEF JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Joshua Baust pled guilty of the offense of robbery and pled true to two enhancement paragraphs. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03; 12.42. The trial court assessed Baust’s punishment at forty years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division. Id. This appeal ensued. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Baust’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in support of the motion asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel’s brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that counsel has performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See id. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, “after a full examination of all the proceedings, . . . decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 349–50, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 438 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we have determined the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826– (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of Baust is granted.

Baust v. The State of Texas Page 2 MATT JOHNSON Chief Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: February 20, 2025

Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed Do Not Publish [CRPM]

Baust v. The State of Texas Page 3