Lamont Alva Scrutchens v. The State of Texas Appeal from 277th District Court of Williamson County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-22-00029-CR Lamont Alva Scrutchens, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE 277TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 16-3308-K277, THE HONORABLE STACEY MATHEWS, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Lamont Alva Scrutchens was charged with the offense of aggravated robbery. See Tex. Penal Code § 29.03. Appellant pleaded guilty and judicially confessed to the offense, and the trial court placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision for ten years. The State twice moved to revoke appellant’s community supervision and to adjudicate his guilt based on alleged violations of the terms of his community supervision. After the first motion to adjudicate, the trial court amended the conditions of his community supervision. After the second motion to adjudicate, appellant pleaded “true” to some of the alleged violations of the terms of his community supervision, and the trial court adjudicated him guilty of the offense and assessed punishment at twenty years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 86-87 (1988). Appellant’s counsel has represented to the Court that she has provided copies of the motion and brief to appellant; advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response; and provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record along with the mailing address of this Court. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. Although appellant requested and received the appellate record and additional time to file a pro se response, that time has run and no pro se brief has been filed. We have conducted an independent review of the record, including appellate counsel’s brief, and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. The trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt is affirmed. __________________________________________ Chari L. Kelly, Justice Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Smith Affirmed Filed: August 26, 2022 Do Not Publish 2
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.
