From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grumbine v. State

STATE of TEXAS in the TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
Jun 27, 2013
No. 10-13-00065-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 27, 2013)

Opinion

No. 10-13-00065-CR

06-27-2013

DAVID GRUMBINE, JR., Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


From the 220th District Court

Hamilton County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR07774


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant David Grumbine, Jr. made an open guilty plea to the offense of delivery of less than one gram of methamphetamine and waived his right to a jury trial. Upon the admission of Appellant's written stipulation and judicial confession, the trial court found Appellant guilty. After a punishment hearing, the trial court sentenced Appellant to twenty-four months' confinement in state jail and assessed a $1,000 fine. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal.

Appellant's appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief, 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). Although informed of his right to do so, Appellant did not file a pro se response to the Anders brief.

In an Anders case, we must, "after a full examination of all the proceedings, [] decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Id. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; 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, 439 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988).

We have conducted an independent review of the record, and because we find this appeal to be wholly frivolous, we affirm the judgment. We grant appointed counsel's motion to withdraw from representation of Appellant. Notwithstanding this grant, appointed counsel must send Appellant a copy of our decision, notify him of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter certifying counsel's compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673-74 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

REX D. DAVIS

Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Do not publish
[CR25]


Summaries of

Grumbine v. State

STATE of TEXAS in the TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
Jun 27, 2013
No. 10-13-00065-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 27, 2013)
Case details for

Grumbine v. State

Case Details

Full title:DAVID GRUMBINE, JR., Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:STATE of TEXAS in the TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

Date published: Jun 27, 2013

Citations

No. 10-13-00065-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 27, 2013)

Citing Cases

Samson v. State

Judges, lawyers and laymen alike are all presumed to know the law regardless of conscious knowledge or lack…

Benik v. Hatcher

Indeed, everyone is "presumed to know the law regardless of conscious knowledge or lack thereof, and are…