From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davis v. State

State of Texas in the Eleventh Court of Appeals
Jan 11, 2013
No. 11-12-00283-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 11, 2013)

Opinion

No. 11-12-00283-CR

01-11-2013

JAMES LYNDON DAVIS, Appellant v. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


On Appeal from the 29th District Court


Palo Pinto County, Texas


Trial Court Cause No. 14540


MEMORANDUM OPINION

The jury convicted James Lyndon Davis of sexual assault of a child. After appellant pleaded "true" to a prior felony conviction alleged for enhancement purposes, the trial court sentenced him to confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of fifteen years. We dismiss the appeal.

Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw in this appeal. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel's brief. A response has not been filed. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeals are without merit and should be dismissed. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.

By letter, this court granted appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel's brief.

We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 ("In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant's right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review under Rule 68."). Likewise, this court advises appellant that he may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Willson, J.


Summaries of

Davis v. State

State of Texas in the Eleventh Court of Appeals
Jan 11, 2013
No. 11-12-00283-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 11, 2013)
Case details for

Davis v. State

Case Details

Full title:JAMES LYNDON DAVIS, Appellant v. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:State of Texas in the Eleventh Court of Appeals

Date published: Jan 11, 2013

Citations

No. 11-12-00283-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 11, 2013)