NO. 12-16-00062-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

MANUEL WAYNE HOGAN, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 420TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Manuel Wayne Hogan appeals his conviction for evading arrest. 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 indictment with evading arrest or detention and pleaded “not 

guilty.” The jury found Appellant “guilty” as charged. Appellant pleaded “true” to two felony 

enhancement paragraphs, and the jury assessed his punishment at imprisonment for twenty-five 

years. 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 relates that he has diligently reviewed the record and investigated all 

possible grounds for appeal but found no error to present for our review. In compliance with 

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief 
2

contains a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable 

grounds to be advanced.1

We have considered counsel’s brief and conducted our own independent review of the 

record. Id. at 811. We have found no reversible error. 

CONCLUSION

As required by Anders and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1991), Appellant’s counsel has 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, we agree with Appellant’s counsel that the 

appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and 

affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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 these cases 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 pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed 

within thirty days from the date of this court’s judgment or the date the last timely motion for 

rehearing was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). 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 Rule 

68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered May 24, 2017.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

 

1 Counsel for Appellant certified in his brief that he provided Appellant with a copy of the brief. Appellant 

was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired and no pro se brief has 

been filed.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MAY 24, 2017

NO. 12-16-00062-CR

MANUEL WAYNE HOGAN,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 420th District Court 

of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F1521620)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief 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.

By per curiam opinion.

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