Taylor v. State

Full title: MATTHEW CLARK TAYLOR, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District, Tyler

Date published: Aug 25, 2006

Nos. 12-05-00247-CR, 12-05-00248-CR, 12-05-00249-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 25, 2006)

Opinion

Nos. 12-05-00247-CR, 12-05-00248-CR, 12-05-00249-CR

Opinion delivered August 25, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH.

Appeal from the 7th Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas.

Panel consisted of WORTHEN, C.J. and GRIFFITH, J.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Matthew Clark Taylor appeals his convictions for aggravated assault on a public servant, for which he was sentenced to three terms of imprisonment for life. 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 charged by separate indictments with three counts of aggravated assault on a public servant by use or exhibition of a deadly weapon. The trial court admonished Appellant, and Appellant pleaded "guilty" as charged in each cause. The trial accepted Appellant's "guilty" pleas and proceeded to conduct a trial on punishment. Ultimately, the trial court sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for life for each conviction. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TOANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

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). Appellant's counsel states that he has 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. 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.¹ We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

CONCLUSION

As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991), Appellant's counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. We carried the motion with our consideration of 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.