James Earl Miles v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed July 25, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-23-00260-CR
__________

JAMES EARL MILES, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 70th District Court
Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. A-22-0982-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The jury convicted Appellant, James Earl Miles, of the third-degree felony
offense of failure to comply with sex offender registration requirements. See TEX.
CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 62.102(b)(2) (West 2018); 62.051(a), (c)(7) (West
Supp. 2023). The evidence presented at the guilt/innocence phase of trial included
testimony from the registration officer who discovered unreported social media
accounts that were associated with Appellant. This discovery occurred after the
officer’s first meeting with Appellant, wherein she explained the registration
requirements and Appellant indicated that he understood. The jury found Appellant
guilty of the offense. Appellant pled true to an enhancement paragraph—aggravated
assault with a deadly weapon—which enhanced his punishment range to that of a
second-degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(a) (West 2019). The jury
assessed his punishment at imprisonment for thirteen years in the Correctional
Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and the trial court
sentenced Appellant accordingly.
Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed in this court a motion to
withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and
conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are
no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of
the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of both
the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel advised Appellant of his right
to review the record and file a pro se response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also
advised Appellant of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 68. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Appellant subsequently filed a response to counsel’s Anders brief. We have
reviewed Appellant’s response. In addressing an Anders brief and a pro se response,
a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and
issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible
error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the
trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman, 252
S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
2
Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently
reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal
exist. 1
We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the
trial court.

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
JUSTICE

July 25, 2024
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68
1

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3