# Jonthon Ray Price v. State > Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · April 16, 2013 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3118782 ## Case - **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) - **Decided:** April 16, 2013 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3118782 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - explaining that frivolity is determined by considering whether there are “arguable grounds” for review ## Opinion text Opinion issued April 16, 2013. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NOS. 01-13-00002-CR 01-13-00003-CR 01-13-00004-CR 01-13-00005-CR ____________ JONTHON RAY PRICE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 10th District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 11CR2499, 11CR2500, 11CR2501 and 11CR2661 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Jonthon Ray Price, pleaded guilty without an agreed punishment recommendation to three charges of aggravated robbery and one charge of aggravated kidnapping. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 29.03, 20.04 (Vernon 2011). After preparation of a pretrial sentence investigation, the trial court assessed punishment at 18 years’ confinement, 8 years’ confinement, 6 years’ confinement, and 8 years’ confinement, to run concurrently. Appellant filed timely notices of appeal. Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and therefore the appeals are 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. See Anders, 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 discusses the evidence adduced at the trial, supplies us with references to the record, and provides us with citation to legal authorities. Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and that he 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, 154 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Here, counsel’s brief reflects that he delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to file a response. See id. at 408. Appellant has not filed a pro se response. 2 We have independently reviewed the entire record, and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that therefore the appeals are frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (explaining that frivolity is determined by considering whether there are “arguable grounds” for review); Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-27 (emphasizing that reviewing court— and not counsel—determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether the appeal is wholly frivolous); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155. An appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d 827 & n.6. We affirm the judgments of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 1 Attorney, Cedrick L. Muhammad, must immediately send the notice required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). PER CURIAM 1 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 Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 3 Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Brown. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 4 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3118782. Public record. Not legal advice.