From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morgan v. State

Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
Jun 4, 2014
No. 07-13-00136-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 4, 2014)

Opinion

No. 07-13-00136-CR

06-04-2014

LARRY JOE MORGAN, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE


On Appeal from the 396th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1249395D, Honorable George W. Gallagher, Presiding


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

Appellant, Larry Joe Morgan, was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The same jury found the enhancement paragraph alleged in the indictment "True" and sentenced appellant to serve 20 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant appealed, and we will affirm.

See id. § 12.42(b) (West Supp. 2013).

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. Appellant has filed a response. By his Anders brief, counsel reviewed all grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. Independent of counsel, appellant has, by his response, urged the Court to reverse his conviction for a number of different reasons. We have reviewed the grounds suggested by counsel and the grounds alleged by appellant, and we have 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

Morgan v. State

Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
Jun 4, 2014
No. 07-13-00136-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 4, 2014)
Case details for

Morgan v. State

Case Details

Full title:LARRY JOE MORGAN, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

Court:Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

Date published: Jun 4, 2014

Citations

No. 07-13-00136-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 4, 2014)

Citing Cases

Morgan v. Varghese

In 2013, a Tarrant County jury convicted Morgan of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, found the…

Morgan v. Harris

On appeal to the Seventh Court of Appeals in Amarillo, Harris filed an Anders brief in Morgan's case,…