Lexus Clark v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 263rd District Court of Harris County (majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued October 6, 2011. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-10-00628-CR LEXUS CLARK, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 263rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1239033 MEMORANDUM OPINION Lexus Clark pled guilty to the felony offense of aggravated robbery. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03 (West 2003). After a pre-sentencing investigation hearing, the trial court assessed punishment at ten years confinement. Clark s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in which he states that no valid grounds for appeal exist and that any appeal would be frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Clark has not filed a pro se response. Because we conclude that appellant has raised no arguable grounds for appeal, we grant counsel s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial court. Background In January 2010, the State charged Clark by indictment with aggravated robbery, a first degree felony offense punishable by five to ninety-nine years imprisonment. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.32, 29.03 (West 2003). Her guilty plea was signed by Clark, her counsel, and counsel for the State, and it was approved by the court. At the pre-sentencing hearing, Clark admitted to participating in the aggravated robbery, showed remorse for her crime, and expressed an intent to reform. The trial court sentenced her to ten years imprisonment. This appeal followed. Discussion The brief submitted by Clark s court-appointed counsel states his professional opinion that there are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal and that any appeal would, therefore, lack merit. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. Counsel s brief meets the minimum Anders requirements by presenting a 2 professional evaluation of the record and stating why there are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal. See id.; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 07 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel sent Clark a letter informing her of his conclusion that there was no reversible error that could be raised on her behalf on appeal, explaining his analysis in reaching that conclusion, and stating that he filed an Anders brief with the Court. He also informed Clark of her right to examine the record and file a pro se brief. He provided her with a copy of the his Anders brief, his motion to withdraw, and rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. When we receive an Anders brief from a defendant s court-appointed attorney who asserts that no arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must determine that issue independently by conducting our own review of the entire record. 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 case is wholly frivolous ); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In conducting our review, we consider any pro se response that the defendant files to her appointed counsel s Anders brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). If our independent review of the record leads us to conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous, we may affirm the trial court s judgment by issuing an opinion in which we explain that we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Id. at 828. Clark may challenge 3 the holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by petitioning for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. at 827 & n.6. Conclusion In accordance with Anders and Bledsoe, we have reviewed the record and the Anders brief from Clark s appointed counsel. We conclude that there are no arguable grounds for reversal on appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant appointed counsel s motion to withdraw.1 Harvey Brown Justice Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Sharp and Brown. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4. 1 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform Clark of the result of this appeal and that she may, on her own, pursue discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 & n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 26 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Stephens v. State, 35 S.W.3d 770, 771-72 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.). 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.
