Cohenv.State

Court of Appeals For The First District of TexasJul 3, 2018
NO. 01-17-00715-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 3, 2018)

NO. 01-17-00715-CR

07-03-2018

HAROLD FLOYD COHEN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


On Appeal from the 405th District Court Galveston County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 16-CR1677

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Harold Floyd Cohen pleaded guilty to the offense of robbery with two enhancements. The jury assessed punishment and the trial court sentenced Cohen in accordance with the jury's verdict to life in prison.

On appeal, Cohen's appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, along with a brief, stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).

Counsel's brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal authority. 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

Counsel advised Cohen of his right to access the record and provided him with a form motion for access to the record. Counsel further advised Cohen of his right to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. Cohen did not request access to the record and did not file a pro se response.

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We note that an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel's motion to withdraw. Attorney Mark W. Stevens must immediately send Cohen the required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). --------

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Higley, Brown, and Caughey. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).