Frank Anzaldua Lira v. State

Opinion issued November 30, 2011

In The

Court of

Appeals

For The

First District

of Texas

————————————

NO. 01-09-01016-CR

———————————

Frank Anzaldua Lira , Appellant

V.

The State of

Texas , Appellee

On Appeal from the 240th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 46928A

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found appellant Frank Anzaldua Lira guilty of knowingly

and intentionally possessing with the intent to deliver more than 4 grams but

less than 200 grams of cocaine and assessed his punishment at forty-five years’

confinement. See Tex.

Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.102(3)(D),

481.112(a),(d) (West 2010); Tex. Penal

Code Ann. § 12.32(a) (West 2011).

Lira filed a

timely notice of appeal.

Lira’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief in which he

concludes that there are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal and that

any appeal would, therefore, lack merit.

See Anders v. California , 386

U.S. 738, 744 , 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967).

Counsel’s brief meets the minimum Anders

requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and stating

why there are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal. See id. ;

see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d

403 , 406–07 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). A

copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to Lira and Lira has been advised of his

right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See

Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

When we receive an Anders

brief from a defendant’s court-appointed attorney who asserts that no arguable

grounds for appeal exist, we must determine that issue independently by

conducting our own review of the entire record. See

Anders , 386 U.S. at 744 , 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing

court, and not counsel, determines, after full examination of proceedings,

whether case is “wholly frivolous”); Stafford ,

813 S.W.2d at 511 . In conducting our

review, we consider any pro se response that the defendant files to his appointed

counsel’s Anders brief. See

Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824 ,

826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). If our

independent review of the record leads us to conclude that the appeal is wholly

frivolous, we may affirm the trial court’s judgment by issuing an opinion in

which we explain that we have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Id. at 828 . Lira may

challenge the holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by

petitioning for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. Id.

at 827 & n.6.

Conclusion

In accordance with Anders

and Bledsoe , we have reviewed the

record and the Anders brief from

Lira’s appointed counsel. We conclude

that there are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial

court and grant appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw. [1]

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 Lira of the result of this appeal and that

he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Court of Criminal

Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824 , 827 & n.6 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005); Ex Parte Wilson , 956

S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Stephens

v. State , 35 S.W.3d 770 , 771–72 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no

pet.).