From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hicks v. State

Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
Mar 31, 2014
No. 07-13-00226-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 31, 2014)

Opinion

No. 07-13-00226-CR

03-31-2014

TERRELL EUGENE HICKS A/K/A TERRELL HICKS, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE


On Appeal from the 297th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1294857D, Honorable Everett Young, Presiding


MEMORANDUM OPINION


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

Appellant, Terrell Eugene Hicks, entered a plea of guilty to the offense of burglary of a habitation and was placed on two years deferred adjudication community service. The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate. After hearing the evidence and appellant's plea, the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty of the burglary of a habitation offense and, subsequently, sentenced appellant to a term of four years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant gave notice of appeal. We will affirm.

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. [Panel Op.] 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) (en banc). The Court has also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a response.

By his Anders brief, counsel reviewed all grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed the grounds suggested by counsel 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.

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

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.
--------

Mackey K. Hancock

Justice
Do not publish.


Summaries of

Hicks v. State

Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
Mar 31, 2014
No. 07-13-00226-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 31, 2014)
Case details for

Hicks v. State

Case Details

Full title:TERRELL EUGENE HICKS A/K/A TERRELL HICKS, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS…

Court:Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

Date published: Mar 31, 2014

Citations

No. 07-13-00226-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 31, 2014)