From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davenport v. State

Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
Apr 13, 2015
No. 07-14-00280-CR (Tex. App. Apr. 13, 2015)

Opinion

No. 07-14-00280-CR No. 07-14-00281-CR

04-13-2015

TEDDIE WAYNE DAVENPORT, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE


On Appeal from the 77th District Court Limestone County, Texas
Trial Court No. 13,187-A, 13,188-A; Honorable Patrick H. Simmons, Presiding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

Appellant, Teddie Wayne Davenport, was convicted of burglary of a building, and sentenced to ten years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (ID-TDCJ). In a consolidated trial, appellant was convicted of evading arrest in a motor vehicle with an affirmative finding of the use of a deadly weapon for which he was also sentenced to ten years in the ID-TDCJ for this offense. Appellant gave notice of appeal. We will affirm.

See id. § 38.04(a), (b)(1)(B) (West Supp. 2014).

See id. § 12.35(c)(1) (West Supp. 2014).

Appellant's attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744-45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court's judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The Court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Additionally, appellant's counsel has certified that he has provided appellant with a copy of the record to use in preparation of a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant has not filed a response.

By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant's right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.
--------

Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court's judgment is affirmed.

Mackey K. Hancock

Justice
Do not publish.


Summaries of

Davenport v. State

Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
Apr 13, 2015
No. 07-14-00280-CR (Tex. App. Apr. 13, 2015)
Case details for

Davenport v. State

Case Details

Full title:TEDDIE WAYNE DAVENPORT, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

Court:Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

Date published: Apr 13, 2015

Citations

No. 07-14-00280-CR (Tex. App. Apr. 13, 2015)