From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shatlaw v. State

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
Oct 28, 2020
No. 04-19-00742-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 28, 2020)

Opinion

No. 04-19-00742-CR

10-28-2020

Richard Paul SHATLAW, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee


MEMORANDUM OPINION

From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas
Trial Court No. 6876
Honorable Kirsten B. Cohoon, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED

Richard Paul Shatlaw was convicted by a jury of the offense of indecency with a child by contact. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11(a). The trial court followed the jury's recommendation and sentenced Shatlaw to serve 13 years imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and assessed a $3,000 fine. Shatlaw appealed.

Shatlaw's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and a motion to withdraw. In the brief, counsel raises no arguable appellate issues, and concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the Anders requirements. See id.; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). As required, counsel provided Shatlaw with a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw and informed him of the right to receive a copy of the appellate record and to file his own pro se brief. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Shatlaw did not file a pro se brief. After reviewing the appellate record and counsel's brief, we conclude there is no reversible error and agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Because the judgment incorrectly recites that Shatlaw pled guilty to the offense, it is modified to read that Shatlaw pled "not guilty."

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed as modified, and appellate counsel's motion to withdraw is granted. Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177.

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Shatlaw wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice DO NOT PUBLISH


Summaries of

Shatlaw v. State

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas
Oct 28, 2020
No. 04-19-00742-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 28, 2020)
Case details for

Shatlaw v. State

Case Details

Full title:Richard Paul SHATLAW, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

Court:Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

Date published: Oct 28, 2020

Citations

No. 04-19-00742-CR (Tex. App. Oct. 28, 2020)