From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tadlock v. State

COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS
Feb 5, 2014
NO. 12-13-00125-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 5, 2014)

Opinion

NO. 12-13-00125-CR

02-05-2014

EDDIE DEAN TADLOCK, JR., APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE


APPEAL FROM THE 114TH


JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT


SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS


MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Eddie Dean Tadlock, Jr. appeals his conviction for burglary of a habitation. Appellant's counsel filed a brief asserting 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

A Smith County grand jury indicted Appellant for the offense of burglary of a habitation and also alleged that he was previously convicted of a felony. A jury found Appellant guilty of the offense as charged in the indictment. Appellant pleaded true to the enhancement paragraph, and the jury assessed punishment at twenty-eight years of imprisonment with no fine. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Appellant's counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous. Counsel states that he has reviewed the appellate record and that he is unable to find any reversible error or jurisdictional defects. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel's brief presents a thorough chronological summary of the procedural history of the case and further states why counsel is unable to present any arguable issues for appeal.See Anders, 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Gainous, 436 S.W.2d at 138; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988).

Counsel states in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of his brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such brief has expired, and we have received no pro se brief.

We have considered counsel's brief and have conducted our own independent review of the record. We found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

CONCLUSION

As required, Appellant's counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. 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 appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion for leave to withdraw is granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a).

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 this case 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 id at 408 n.22. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days after the date of this opinion or after the date this court overrules the last timely motion for rehearing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of 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 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.

JAMES T. WORTHEN

Chief Justice
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

JUDGMENT


NO. 12-13-00125-CR


EDDIE DEAN TADLOCK, JR.,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee


Appeal from the 114th District Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-1771-12)

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 Appellant's counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

James T. Worthen, Chief Justice.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.


Summaries of

Tadlock v. State

COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS
Feb 5, 2014
NO. 12-13-00125-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 5, 2014)
Case details for

Tadlock v. State

Case Details

Full title:EDDIE DEAN TADLOCK, JR., APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

Court:COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS

Date published: Feb 5, 2014

Citations

NO. 12-13-00125-CR (Tex. App. Feb. 5, 2014)