James Clayton Garrett v. The State of Texas Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 1 of Tarrant County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02-16-00115-CR JAMES CLAYTON GARRETT APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE ---------FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 1419884D ---------- MEMORANDUM OPINION1 ---------Appellant James Clayton Garrett entered an open plea of guilty to robbery causing bodily injury and pleaded true to a repeat offender notice. Following the preparation of a presentence investigation report, the trial court conducted a punishment hearing, convicted Garrett of the underlying offense, and sentenced him to ten years’ confinement. 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. Garrett’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel avers that in his professional opinion, the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). In compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel notified Garrett of his motion to withdraw, provided him a copy of the motion and brief, informed him of his right to file a pro se response, informed him of his right to seek discretionary review should this court hold the appeal is frivolous, and took concrete measures to facilitate Garrett’s review of the appellate record. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court informed Garrett that he may file a pro se response to counsel’s brief, and he did so. The State did not submit a brief. Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988). We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and Garrett’s pro se response, and we agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and 2 without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. /s/ Bill Meier BILL MEIER JUSTICE PANEL: MEIER, GABRIEL, and SUDDERTH, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) DELIVERED: December 22, 2016 3
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.
