emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous
How later courts described this case
- emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous
- reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist
- reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Opinion issued October 4, 2018
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-17-00483-CR
———————————
JOSHUA DENAGELO MYLES, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 262nd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1522818
MEMORANDUM OPINION
After a jury trial, Joshua Denagelo Myles was found guilty of the offense of
murder and was sentenced to 18 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice.
On appeal, Myles’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, along
with a brief, stating that the record presents no reversible error and 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 and supplying us with references to the record and legal
authority. 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 indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the
record and 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, 155
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
Counsel advised Myles of his right to access the record and provided him with
a form motion for access to the record. Counsel further advised Myles of his right
to file a pro se response to the Anders brief. Myles did not request access to the
record and did not file a pro se response.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we
conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds
for review, and the appeal is frivolous. 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 appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State,
2
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–
27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court
determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We note that
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.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.1 Attorney Terence A. Gaiser must immediately send Myles the required
notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P.
6.5(c). We dismiss any 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).
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 Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
3