Opinion
12-22-00274-CR
02-22-2024
JAMIE ONEAL BLACKSHIRE, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
DO NOT PUBLISH
Appeal from the 369th District Court of Cherokee County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 21338)
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Jamie O'Neal Blackshire appeals his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant filed a pro se response. We affirm.
Background
Appellant was charged by indictment with endangering a child and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The State filed a notice of punishment enhancement prior to trial. Appellant pleaded "not guilty," and the matter proceeded to a jury trial.
At trial, Officer Charles Yount testified that he was employed by the Jacksonville Police Department in July 2019 when he observed a vehicle speed across lanes of traffic and make a sudden stop next to his patrol vehicle. Officer Yount exited his vehicle to figure out what was going on. He testified that the driver of the vehicle, Latysha McCuin, appeared panicked and was covered in blood from stab wounds to the back of her head and left shoulder. Appellant then exited the car and fled. McCuin told Officer Yount that Appellant stabbed her when he realized she was taking him home. Appellant is the father of her children and had come to visit. However, McCuin decided that it was time for Appellant to leave and he did not want to comply. McCuin's children were in the vehicle at the time of the incident, and the oldest child corroborated the story.
McCuin's children testified at trial that Appellant stabbed their mother. McCuin denied the incident at trial, insisting that she fell and hurt herself. She also testified that she did not "press charges" against Appellant and that she signed an affidavit of non-prosecution. Appellant did not testify at trial; however, his custodial interview was admitted into evidence in which he claimed the incident was an accident.
The jury ultimately found Appellant "not guilty" of endangering a child and "guilty" of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. At punishment, Appellant pleaded "true" to the enhancement paragraphs. The jury assessed punishment at seventeen years confinement and a $10,000 fine. This appeal followed.
Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California
Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v. State. Appellant's counsel relates that he reviewed the record and found no arguable grounds for appeal. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant's brief contains a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.
Appellant contends in his pro se response that his trial counsel was ineffective.Specifically, he urges his trial counsel failed to interview the victim in person and failed to offer affidavits of non-prosecution into evidence. He further argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction.
In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant's counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant's review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
When faced with an Anders brief and a pro se response by an appellant, an appellate court can either (1) determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) determine 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. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Conclusion
After conducting an independent examination of the record, we find no reversible error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See id. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
As required by Anders and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant's counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits and now grant counsel's motion for leave to withdraw.
As a result of our disposition of this case, Appellant's counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the date that the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.
Opinion delivered February 22, 2024.
JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.