You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Raymond Charles Everhart v. State

Citation: Not availableDocket: 01-03-00438-CR

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; January 7, 2004; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

Raymond Charles Everhart was convicted by a jury for possession of cocaine in an amount less than one gram, resulting in a two-year confinement sentence in State jail. His court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, asserting that the appeal is wholly frivolous, supported by an Anders brief that complied with legal standards by evaluating the record and identifying no arguable grounds for appeal. Counsel provided Everhart a copy of the brief and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief, but he did not submit any such brief within the 30-day period. After reviewing the record and the counsel's brief, the court found no reversible error and affirmed the trial court's judgment. Counsel's motion to withdraw was granted, and the opinion was issued per curiam by a panel consisting of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes and Hanks, with a note that it should not be published.

Legal Issues Addressed

Affirmation of Trial Court Judgment

Application: Upon finding no reversible error after reviewing the record and counsel's brief, the appellate court affirms the lower court's judgment.

Reasoning: After reviewing the record and the counsel's brief, the court found no reversible error and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Issuance of Per Curiam Opinion

Application: The appellate court issues a per curiam opinion when the decision is made collectively by the judges without a designated author.

Reasoning: Counsel's motion to withdraw was granted, and the opinion was issued per curiam by a panel consisting of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes and Hanks, with a note that it should not be published.

Right to File Pro Se Brief

Application: The appellant is informed of their right to file a pro se brief upon receiving an Anders brief, though failure to do so does not impact the court's review.

Reasoning: Counsel provided Everhart a copy of the brief and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief, but he did not submit any such brief within the 30-day period.

Withdrawal of Counsel under Anders Procedure

Application: The court evaluates the validity of a counsel's motion to withdraw by assessing the Anders brief to determine if the appeal is frivolous.

Reasoning: His court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, asserting that the appeal is wholly frivolous, supported by an Anders brief that complied with legal standards by evaluating the record and identifying no arguable grounds for appeal.