explaining that Anders briefs serve purpose of “assisting the court in determining both that counsel in fact conducted the required detailed review of the case and that the appeal is . . . frivolous”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that Anders briefs serve purpose of “assisting the court in determining both that counsel in fact conducted the required detailed review of the case and that the appeal is . . . frivolous”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-23-00412-CR
Ronnell Lamont Brown, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY
NO. 81002, THE HONORABLE WADE NICHOLAS FAULKNER, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Ronnell Lamont Brown entered an open plea of guilty to unlawful possession of a
firearm by a felon. See Tex. Penal Code § 46.04. The trial court assessed punishment at ten years
in prison. At the same time, Brown entered an open plea of guilty to aggravated assault with a
deadly weapon, and true to a felony enhancement. See id. §§ 12.42, 22.02. The trial court assessed
punishment at 47 years in prison and ordered $39,504.79 in restitution. Brown appeals both
convictions. This appeal concerns only the possession of a firearm by a felon conviction.
Brown’s court-appointed attorney on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw
supported by an Anders brief contending that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967). Brown’s court-appointed attorney’s brief meets the
requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating
that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See id.; Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766
(Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81-82 (1988) (explaining that
Anders briefs serve purpose of “assisting the court in determining both that counsel in fact
conducted the required detailed review of the case and that the appeal is . . . frivolous”). Brown’s
counsel has represented to the Court that she provided copies of the motion and brief to Brown;
advised Brown of his right to examine the appellate record, file a pro se brief, and pursue
discretionary review following the resolution of the appeal in this Court. She also provided to
Brown a Motion for Pro Se Access to the Appellate Record lacking only Brown’s signature and
the date and provided the mailing address for this Court. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313,
319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Brown filed that motion and received a copy of the Appellate
Record but has not filed a pro se brief or a motion for extension of time to file a brief.
We have independently reviewed the record and have found nothing that might
arguably support the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. We agree
with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw
and affirm the trial court’s order.
__________________________________________
Chari L. Kelly, Justice
Before Justices Baker, Triana, and Kelly
Affirmed
Filed: November 5, 2024
Do Not Publish
2