This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at TexarkanaDec 4, 2018
No. 06-18-00073-CR (Tex. App. Dec. 4, 2018)

No. 06-18-00073-CR



On Appeal from the 102nd District Court Bowie County, Texas
Trial Court No. 17F0012-102 Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. MEMORANDUM OPINION

Joe McMullen was convicted by a Bowie County jury of indecency with a child by contact. Following the jury's recommendation, the trial court sentenced him to twenty years' confinement and assessed a fine of $1,500.00.

See TEX. PENAL CODE § 21.11(a)(1) (West Supp. 2018).

McMullen's attorney has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the proceedings in detail. The brief sets out the procedural history and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the proceedings. Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California, counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. 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 has also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.

On or about September 12, 2018, counsel mailed to McMullen a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw. Counsel also provided McMullen with a copy of the appellate record and informed him of his right to review the record and file a pro se response. On September 13, 2018, this Court informed McMullen that any pro se response was due on or before October 15, 2018. On October 22, 2018, this Court further informed McMullen that the case would be set for submission on November 12, 2018. We received neither a pro se response from McMullen 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 we agree 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 either dismiss the appeal or affirm the trial court's judgment. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel's request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. --------

Ralph K. Burgess

Justice Date Submitted: November 12, 2018
Date Decided: December 5, 2018 Do Not Publish