Xavier Wynn v. The State of Texas Appeal from 184th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued December 3, 2020 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-18-01121-CR ——————————— XAVIER WYNN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 184th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1479442 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Xavier Wynn, pleaded guilty without an agreed punishment recommendation to the first-degree felony offense of aggravated robbery. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 29.03. The trial court found sufficient evidence to find appellant guilty but deferred making any finding regarding appellant’s guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for a period of ten years. The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate appellant’s guilt, alleging violations of the terms of appellant’s community supervision. Appellant pleaded “not true” to the violations. The trial court found certain allegations true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and sentenced appellant to fifty years’ imprisonment. The sentence is within the applicable punishment range. See TEX. PENAL CODE § 12.32. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and that, therefore, the appeal is without 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 this 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 she has thoroughly reviewed the record and that she 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.). Appellant’s counsel certified that he delivered a copy of the motion to withdraw and Anders brief to appellant and informed appellant of his right to file a pro se response. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). 2 Furthermore, counsel certified that she sent appellant the form motion for pro se access to the records for his response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 322 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant 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, that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing that 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– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (reviewing court is not to address merits of each claim raised in Anders brief or pro se response after determining there are no arguable grounds for review); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155. 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. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a). Attorney Angela Cameron must 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 Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826–27. 3 immediately send the required notice and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Goodman, and Countiss. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 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.
