Ruy Enriquez Perez v. State

Opinion issued February

9, 2012.

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of

Texas

NO. 01-10-00500-CR

____________

RUY ENRIQUE PEREZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1142038

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Ruy Enrique Perez, pleaded

guilty without an agreed punishment recommendation to murder. See

Tex. Penal Code Ann . § 19.02)

(Vernon 2011). After preparation of a pretrial

sentence investigation, the trial court assessed punishment at 50 years’

confinement. Appellant timely filed a

notice 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 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. 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 she has thoroughly reviewed the record and that she 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

she 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 filed a pro se

response.

In his pro se response, appellant

contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because (1) his plea

was involuntary because counsel promised him that he would receive deferred

adjudication if he pleaded guilty and (2) trial counsel should have had him

declared incompetent to stand trial.

There is nothing in the record to support either of appellant’s allegations.

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 appeal is 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 judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. [1]

Attorney,

Francis M. Northcutt, 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

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Sharp, and Brown.

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2( b).

[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).