Eugene Mayes v. The State of Texas Appeal from 209th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Opinion issued December 20, 2022 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-21-00584-CR ——————————— EUGENE MAYES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 209th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1604085 MEMORANDUM OPINION After appellant, Eugene Mayes, without an agreed punishment recommendation from the State, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of aggravated robbery,1 the trial court deferred adjudication of appellant’s guilt and placed him on community supervision for five years. The State, alleging various violations of the conditions of appellant’s community supervision, later moved to adjudicate his guilt. After a hearing, the trial court found certain allegations true, found appellant guilty, and assessed his punishment at confinement for thirty years. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal lacks 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 the 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 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.). Counsel has informed the Court that he provided appellant with a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw, informed appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a response to counsel’s Anders brief, and provided him with 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2). 2 a form motion to access the appellate record.2 See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant has not filed a response to his counsel’s Anders brief. 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 (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) (reviewing court must either determine appeal is frivolous and issue opinion explaining no reversible error exists or determine arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand cause to trial court for appointment of new counsel to brief issues on merits); 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 2 This Court also notified appellant that his appointed counsel had filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw and informed appellant that he had a right to examine the appellate record and file a response to his counsel’s Anders brief. And this Court provided appellant with a form motion to access the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). 3 there are no arguable grounds for appeal by petitioning 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.3 Attorney Richard Oliver must immediately send appellant the required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Countiss and Rivas-Molloy. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 3 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); see also Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.