Opinion
NO. 12-13-00348-CRNO. 12-13-00349-CR
07-31-2014
JERRY DON FLEETWOOD, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
APPEAL FROMTHE 7TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jerry Don Fleetwood appeals his convictions for injury to a child and tampering with a witness. 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 separate indictments with the offenses of injury to a child and tampering with a witness, both third degree felonies. Appellant entered an "open" plea of guilty to the offenses charged in the indictments. Appellant and his counsel signed various documents in connection with his guilty pleas, including a stipulation of evidence in which Appellant swore that the facts alleged in the indictments were true and correct, and constituted the evidence in the cases. The trial court accepted Appellant's pleas.
After a punishment hearing, the trial court adjudged Appellant guilty of injury to a child and assessed his punishment at six years of imprisonment. The trial court also adjudged Appellant guilty of tampering with a witness and assessed his punishment at ten years of imprisonment. However, the trial court ordered that imposition of Appellant's punishment for the tampering with a witness offense be suspended, and that he be placed on community supervision for ten years. Further, the trial court ordered that these sentences should run concurrently. These appeals followed.
ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating 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. From our review of counsel's brief, it is apparent that counsel is well acquainted with the facts in these cases. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel's brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the cases, and further states that counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. We have reviewed the records for reversible error and have found none.See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Counsel for Appellant certified that he provided Appellant with a copy of his brief and informed Appellant that he had the right to file his own brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief, but the time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief.
CONCLUSION
As required, Appellant's counsel has moved for leave to withdraw in both cases. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We are in agreement with Appellant's counsel that the appeals are wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motions for leave to withdraw are hereby granted, and the trial court's judgments are affirmed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2.
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 further review of these cases by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or he must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the day the last timely motion for rehearing 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. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivered July 31, 2014.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
JUDGMENT
Appeal from the 7th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-0563-13)
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.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
JUDGMENT
Appeal from the 7th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-1021-13)
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.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.