Facts
- Wenli Wang was convicted by a jury for dissuading a witness, corporal injury to a spouse, and child abuse, stemming from an incident where he threatened and physically assaulted his wife while their daughter attempted to intervene [lines="20-27"].
- The assault involved Wang holding his wife down and beating her with an iPad stand, alongside verbal threats of violence [lines="40-42"].
- During the trial, prosecutors presented a surreptitious audio recording made by Wang's wife during the incident, along with her and their daughter's testimonies [lines="48-52"].
- Wang testified in his own defense, characterizing his wife as the aggressor and disputing the accusations against him [lines="62-64"].
- He claimed that earlier incidents, including a wrongful arrest in 2017, negatively impacted his family and his mental health [lines="93-95"].
Issues
- Did the trial court commit error by allegedly denying Wang the right to represent himself during the trial? [lines="121-122"].
- Was there prosecutorial misconduct during Wang’s direct and cross-examination that warranted appeal? [lines="134-135"].
- Were the audio recordings admitted at trial inadmissible as illegally obtained evidence? [lines="140-142"].
Holdings
- The court did not deny Wang the right to represent himself, as he later chose to accept representation by a public defender [lines="123-128"].
- There was no prosecutorial misconduct found during the trial based on an independent review of the record [lines="138-139"].
- The trial court properly admitted the audio recordings as they were relevant to the charges of domestic violence and dissuading a witness, following the applicable law [lines="145-146"].
OPINION
Case Information
*1 Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-22-00729-CR James Joshua GRIFFIN , Appellant v.
The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2019CR11589 Honorable Jennifer Peña, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 4, 2024
AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
James Joshua Griffin was indicted for indecency with a child both by contact and by exposure. Griffin entered a plea bargain with the State in which he pled no contest to the lesser offense of intentionally and knowingly causing injury to a child. P ENAL C ODE § 22.04(a). The trial court accepted his no-contest plea, deferred a finding of guilt, ordered that he be placed on community supervision for ten years, ordered that he complete one hundred hours of community service, and assessed a $1,000 fine. As part of the plea bargain, Griffin agreed to terms *2 and conditions of community supervision, including a requirement to complete sex offender treatment and to be supervised by the Sex Offender Management Team. Following the trial court’s acceptance of Griffin’s no-contest plea, the trial court certified Griffin retained a limited right to appeal adverse rulings on matters raised by written motion and ruled on before trial if such motions were not withdrawn or waived.
On appeal, Griffin’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief in which he concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit, and requests to withdraw as counsel. The brief demonstrates a professional and thorough evaluation of the record and meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel sent copies of the brief, which included a request to withdraw, to Griffin and informed him of his rights in compliance with the requirements of Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court notified Griffin of the deadline to file a pro se brief. Griffin did file a pro se brief; however, under his limited right to appeal, his brief presents nothing for us to review.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and Griffin’s brief. We find no arguable grounds for appeal exist and have decided the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.) (per curiam); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). We therefore grant the request to withdraw filed by appointed counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See id.
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Griffin wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for *3 discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that is overruled by this court. R. A PP . P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. 68.4.
Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice DO NOT PUBLISH