From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Motes v. State

COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS
May 27, 2016
NO. 12-15-00111-CR (Tex. App. May. 27, 2016)

Opinion

NO. 12-15-00111-CR

05-27-2016

CHARLIE JOSEPH MOTES, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE


APPEAL FROM THE 114TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT SMITH COUNTY, TEXASMEMORANDUM OPINION

Charlie Joseph Motes appeals his conviction for evading arrest with a vehicle. 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 pleaded guilty to evading arrest with a vehicle, and the trial court placed Appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision. The State later filed an application to proceed to final adjudication on grounds that Appellant violated certain conditions of his community supervision. Appellant pleaded "true" to violating several community supervision conditions. The trial court revoked Appellant's community supervision, found Appellant guilty of evading arrest with a motor vehicle, and sentenced Appellant to eight years of imprisonment.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous. Appellant's counsel states that he has reviewed the record and concluded that it reflects no jurisdictional defects or reversible error. 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 procedural history of the case and a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable issues for appeal.See Anders, 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Gainous, 436 S.W.2d at 138; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have conducted an independent review of the record and have found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous.

Appellant's counsel states that he provided Appellant with a copy of the Anders brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief. --------

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). Having found that this appeal is wholly frivolous, we grant counsel's motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the trial court's judgment.

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 file a petition for discretionary review pro se. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 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; 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 May 27, 2016.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

JUDGMENT

Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-1777-13)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief 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.

By per curiam opinion.

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


Summaries of

Motes v. State

COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS
May 27, 2016
NO. 12-15-00111-CR (Tex. App. May. 27, 2016)
Case details for

Motes v. State

Case Details

Full title:CHARLIE JOSEPH MOTES, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

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

Date published: May 27, 2016

Citations

NO. 12-15-00111-CR (Tex. App. May. 27, 2016)