Joshua Baust v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals
Tenth Appellate District of Texas

No. 10-24-00010-CR

Joshua Baust,
Appellant

v.

The State of Texas,
Appellee

On appeal from the
87th District Court of Freestone County, Texas
Judge Amy Thomas Ward, presiding
Trial Court No. 23-019CR

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Joshua Baust pled guilty of the offense of robbery and pled true to two

enhancement paragraphs. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03; 12.42. The

trial court assessed Baust’s punishment at forty years confinement in the

Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division. Id. This

appeal ensued. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Baust’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders

brief in support of the motion 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, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel’s

brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and

compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that

counsel has performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See id. at

744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App.

[Panel Op.] 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407–09 (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.” Anders, 386

U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct.

346, 349–50, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); 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, 438 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440

(1988). After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we have determined

the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–

28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of Baust is granted.

Baust v. The State of Texas Page 2
MATT JOHNSON
Chief Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: February 20, 2025

Before Chief Justice Johnson,
Justice Smith, and
Justice Harris
Affirmed
Do Not Publish
[CRPM]

Baust v. The State of Texas Page 3