# Ronald Eugene Cockrell v. State

> Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · September 11, 2018

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4311479

## Case

- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
- **Decided:** September 11, 2018
- **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/4311479

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous

## Opinion text

Opinion issued September 11, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals
For The

First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-17-00914-CR
———————————
RONALD EUGENE COCKRELL, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 400th District Court
Fort Bend County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 15-DCR-069981

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Ronal Eugene Cockrell, pleaded guilty without an agreed

recommendation from the State to the offense of aggravated robbery. Following a

sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced appellant to twelve years’ imprisonment.
This sentence is within the applicable range.1 The trial court certified that this was

not a plea-bargain case, and that appellant had the right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 25.2(a)(2). 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 that,

therefore, the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a

professional evaluation of the record and supplying this Court with references to the

record and legal authority. See id. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807,

812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). 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; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

Appellant’s counsel has certified that he mailed a copy of the motion to

withdraw and the Anders brief to appellant and informed appellant of his right to file

a response and to access the record. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2008).

1
See TEX. PENAL CODE § 29.03(b) (offense of aggravated robbery is first-
degree felony); 12.32 (first-degree felony punishable by imprisonment from
5 to 99 years or life).
2
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, 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 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full

examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State,

300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine

whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–

28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (reviewing court is not to address merits of each claim

raised in Anders brief or pro se response after determining there are no arguable

grounds for review); 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 Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178

S.W.3d at 827 n.6.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw.2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a). Attorney Calvin D. Parks must

immediately send the required notice and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of

2
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
this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as

moot.

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Caughey.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

4

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4311479. Public record. Not legal advice.