Dustin Scott Harwell v. The State of Texas Appeal from 21st District Court of Burleson County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-18-00008-CR DUSTIN SCOTT HARWELL, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee From the 21st District Court Burleson County, Texas Trial Court No. 15,391 MEMORANDUM OPINION The trial court convicted Dustin Scott Harwell of the offense of burglary of a habitation and assessed punishment at fifteen years confinement. We affirm. Harwell’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel informed Harwell of his right to submit a brief on his own behalf. Harwell did not file a brief. Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error, and we conclude that counsel performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at; accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is "wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10 (1988). After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we determine the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgments. Counsel's request that he be allowed to withdraw from representation of Harwell is granted. Additionally, counsel must send Harwell a copy of our decision, notify Harwell of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter certifying counsel's compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4. TEX.R.APP.P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22. AL SCOGGINS Justice Harwell v. State Page 2 Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed; motion granted Opinion delivered and filed September 12, 2018 Do not publish [CR25] Harwell v. State Page 3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.
