Opinion
12-23-00273-CR
08-21-2024
DARRYL WAYNE HOOD, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
DO NOT PUBLISH
Appeal from the 7th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-1432-23)
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Darryl Wayne Hood appeals his conviction for evading arrest with a motor 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 was indicted for evading arrest with a motor vehicle in Smith County, Texas. The indictment further alleged that (1) Appellant used or exhibited a deadly weapon-a vehicle-while evading, and (2) Appellant had two previous felony convictions for delivery of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance. Appellant pleaded "not guilty," and the matter proceeded to a jury trial.
The evidence at trial showed that Texas Department of Public Safety Trooper Ryan Wilkinson observed Appellant's vehicle traveling fifty miles per hour in a forty-five miles per hour zone. Therefore, Wilkinson attempted to initiate a traffic stop. Instead of stopping, Appellant accelerated, reaching ninety miles per hour. Eventually, Appellant lost control of his vehicle and crashed. Appellant then fled on foot, and Wilkinson tackled him. Wilkinson opined that Appellant's vehicle constituted a deadly weapon under the circumstances. Ultimately, the jury found Appellant "guilty" and that Appellant used a deadly weapon during the offense. At the punishment stage, Appellant pleaded "true" to the enhancement paragraphs, and the jury ultimately sentenced him to seventy years imprisonment. This appeal followed.
Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California
Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v. State. Appellant's counsel states that he 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. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. 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 summation of the procedural history of the case and further states that Appellant's counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.We likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.
In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant's counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant's review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief has expired, and no pro se brief has been filed.
Conclusion
As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant's counsel moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant's counsel's motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court's judgment is affirmed.
As a result of our disposition of this case, 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 he must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the date that 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(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.
JUDGMENT
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.