From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McGathon v. State

COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS
Oct 16, 2012
NO. 12-12-00019-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 16, 2012)

Opinion

NO. 12-12-00019-CR

10-16-2012

LARRY MCGATHON, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE


APPEAL FROM THE 217TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS


MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Larry McGathon appeals his conviction for assault-family violence following the revocation of his deferred adjudication community supervision, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for ten years. 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). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with assault-family violence and pleaded "guilty." The trial court deferred finding Appellant "guilty" and placed him on community supervision for five years.

Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant's community supervision alleging that Appellant had violated certain terms and conditions of his community supervision. A hearing was conducted on the State's motion, at which Appellant pleaded "true" to several of the violations alleged in the State's motion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Appellant had violated multiple terms and conditions of his community supervision as alleged in the State's motion. Thereafter, the trial court revoked Appellant's community supervision, adjudicated him "guilty" of aggravated assault, and sentenced him to imprisonment for ten years. 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 states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant's brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further states that Appellant's counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

Counsel for Appellant states in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of this brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired and no pro se brief has been filed.

CONCLUSION

As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (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. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant's counsel's motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the appeal is affirmed.

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 last timely motion for rehearing that was 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. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

NO. 12-12-00019-CR


LARRY MCGATHON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


Appeal from the 217th Judicial District Court

of Angelina County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 2011-0008)

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 Appellant's counsel's motion to withdraw is granted, the judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.


Summaries of

McGathon v. State

COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS
Oct 16, 2012
NO. 12-12-00019-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 16, 2012)
Case details for

McGathon v. State

Case Details

Full title:LARRY MCGATHON, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

Court:COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS

Date published: Oct 16, 2012

Citations

NO. 12-12-00019-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 16, 2012)