Description: A jury found appellant, Johnathan Sanchez, guilty of the offense of capital
murder and assessed his punishment at confinement for life without parole.1 The
trial court certified that this case is not a plea-bargain case and he has the right to
appeal.2 Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.
Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw and
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 informed the Court that he delivered a copy of the brief to
appellant, informed him of his right to obtain a copy of the record and file a
response to counsel’s Anders brief, and provided him a form motion to access the
record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (citations
omitted); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
Appellant filed a pro se motion to access the record and for an extension of time to
file his response. This Court granted the motion, and the trial court clerk sent a
2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).
3
copy of the record to him. See Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 321. Appellant has not filed a
response to his counsel’s Anders brief.
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal and
conclude that no reversible error exists, there is no arguable ground for review, and
the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400
(emphasizing 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,
826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155–56
(reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire
record). We note that appellant may challenge our holding that there is no
arguable ground 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.
