IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AT AUSTIN, TEXAS

GEORGE HENRY WALKER, § CAUSE NO. 03-14-00789-CR

Appellant § TRIAL COURT NO. B 13-0883-SB

§

§ CAUSE NO. 03-14-00790-CR

V. § TRIAL COURT NO. B 14-0650-SA

§

THE STATE OF TEXAS, § CAUSE NO. 03-14-00791-CR

Appellee § TRIAL COURT NO. B 14-0994-SB

BRIEF OF APPELLANT

Appealed from the 119th Judicial District Court, Tom Green County

Texas

Hon. Ben Woodward, presiding

COPELAND LAW FIRM

P.O. Box 399 

Cedar Park, TX 78613

Phone: 512.897.8126 

Fax: 512.215.8114 

Email: ecopeland63@yahoo.com

Erika Copeland 

State Bar No. 16075250

Attorney for Appellant 

APPELLANT HEREBY WAIVES ORAL ARGUMENT

ACCEPTED

03-14-00789-CR

4864180

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

4/13/2015 2:02:40 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/13/2015 2:02:40 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Table of Contents

Index of Authorities

Identity of Parties and Counsel

i,ii

iii-iv

1

Statement of Facts/Background 3

Summary of the Argument 6

Professional Evaluation of the Record 6

Conclusion 16

Notice to Client 16

Compliance with Kelly v. State 17

Prayer 17

Certificate of Service and Compliance with Rule 9 18

i
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Authorities Page

United States Supreme Court cases

Anders v. California 7,15

386 U.S. 738 (1967)

McCoy v. Court of Appeals 15

486 U.S. 429, 108 S.C. 1895, 100 L.Ed.2d 4440 (1988)

Padilla v. Kennedy 7

130 S. Ct. 1477 (U.S. 2010)

Strickland v. Washington 10

466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals cases

Ganious v. State 7

436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969)

Hernandez v. State 8

988 S.W.2d 770 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999)

Jackson v. State 10

877 S.W.2d 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994)

Jackson v. State

973 S.W.2d 954 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998)

11

Jackson v. State

680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)

15

Keller v. State

125 S.W.3d 600 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2003),

pet. dism’d, improvidently granted, 146 S.W.3d 677

(Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (per curiam)

12

ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES, continued

Authorities Page

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals cases, continued

Kelly v. State 16

436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)

Menefee v. State 13

287 S.W.3d 9, 13-14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)

Nunez v. State 15

565 S.W.2d 536 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978)

Stafford v. State 15,16

813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

Texas Court of Appeal cases

Bradfield v. State 15

42 S.W.3d 350 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2001, pet.ref’d)

Burruss v. State 11

20 S.W.3d 179 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2000, pet.ref’d)

Coronado v. State 15

996 S.W.2d 283 (Tex. App. – Waco 2000, pet.ref’d)

Kanouse v. State 15

958 S.W.2d 509 (Tex. App. – Beaumont 1996, no pet.)

Keller v. State 12,13

125 S.W.3d 600 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2003)

iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES, continued

Authorities Page

Statutes

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 1.15 (West 2014) 12,13

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 21.02 (West 2014) 9

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.13 (West 2014) 7,8

TEXAS PENAL CODE sections 38.04(b)(2)(A) and 38.10(f) 7

(West 2014)

TEXAS HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE §481.115(c) 8

(West 2014)

vi
Cause Nos. 03-14-00789-CR, 03-14-00790-CR, 03-14-00791-CR

George Henry Walker v. The State of Texas

Brief of Appellant 1

IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AT AUSTIN, TEXAS

GEORGE HENRY WALKER, § CAUSE NO. 03-14-00789-CR

Appellant § TRIAL COURT NO. B 13-0883-SB

§

§ CAUSE NO. 03-14-00790-CR

V. § TRIAL COURT NO. B 14-0650-SA

§

THE STATE OF TEXAS, § CAUSE NO. 03-14-00791-CR

Appellee § TRIAL COURT NO. B 14-0994-SB

BRIEF OF APPELLANT

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

COMES NOW George Henry Walker, appellant, who would show the

Court that interested parties herein are asfollows:

GEORGE HENRY WALKER, appellant, TDCJ No. 01967140, J.

Middleton Transfer Facility, 13055 FM 33522, Abilene, Texas 79601.

JOHN SUTTON, trial attorney for appellant, P.O. Box 871, San Angelo,

Texas 76902.

ERIKA COPELAND, appellate attorney for appellant, P.O. Box 399,

Cedar Park, Texas 78613.
Cause Nos. 03-14-00789-CR, 03-14-00790-CR, 03-14-00791-CR

George Henry Walker v. The State of Texas

Brief of Appellant 2

BRYAN CLAYTON and GEORGE MCCREA, Tom Green County

Assistant District Attorney and District Attorney, trial and appellate attorneys,

respectively, for appellee, the State of Texas, Court Street Annex, 124 W.

Beauregard, San Angelo, Texas 76903.
Cause Nos. 03-14-00789-CR, 03-14-00790-CR, 03-14-00791-CR

George Henry Walker v. The State of Texas

Brief of Appellant 3

STATEMENT OF FACTS/BACKGROUND

Offenses Alleged

On November 3, 2014, George Henry Walker appeared before the trial court

for a consolidated plea hearing for the three offenses the subject of this brief:

● CA No. 03-14-00789-CR (Trial No. B 13-0883-SB) - evading

arrest/detention with vehicle, a third degree felony enhanced;

● CA No. 03-14-00790-CR (Trial No. B-14-0650-SA - failure to

appear, a third degree felony enhanced; and

● CA No. 03-14-00791-CR (Trial No. B 14-0994-SB) – possession

of cocaine, more than one but less than four grams, a third degree

felony enhanced.

Walker entered open pleas of “guilty” to all three offenses. (R.R. 2, p. 10).

He also pleaded “true” to two enhancement paragraphs alleged in each indictment.

(R.R. 2, pp. 10-11). The trial court accepted his various pleas on each case and

moved to hear punishment evidence.

Testimony

Deanna Garcia, the state’s fingerprint expert, testified without objection.

She proved up the fingerprints on pen pockets containing Walker’s previous

convictions, thus proving the enhancement provisions of Walker’s indictments.

(R.R. 2, pp. 22-23).
Cause Nos. 03-14-00789-CR, 03-14-00790-CR, 03-14-00791-CR

George Henry Walker v. The State of Texas

Brief of Appellant 4

Kelly Reeves, a San Angelo police officer, testified that she was advised to

be on the look-out for a wanted fugitive on August 13, 2013. She subsequently

located the described car being driven by Walker in her patrol area. (R.R. 2, p.

26). When Walker failed to signal his intent to turn prior to stopping at a stop sign,

she activated her overhead emergency lights to detain Walker, the driver. Instead

of stopping, Walker attempted to elude, running at least six stop signs before he

eventually bailed from the vehicle and ran away. (R.R. 2, pp. 28-29).

Craig Thomason, an officer with San Angelo’s special operations section of

the Police Department, testified that he eventually located Walker after he ran from

Officer Reeves and arrested him. (R.R. 2, pp. 34-36).

Kelly Lajoie, a detective with the San Angelo Police Department, testified

that he also responded to Officer Reeves’ radio dispatches during her pursuit of

Walker. After his eventual arrest, Walker told Lajoie that he ran from Reeves

because he knew he had an outstanding arrest warrant. Walker also admitted to

Lajoie that he possessed marijuana when he was finally caught. (R.R. 2, p. 39).

David Baker, Deputy City Marshall in San Angelo, testified that on

September 14, 2014, he had searched for Walker pursuant to an outstanding

fugitive warrant. Baker said that he ultimately located Walker at the home of

Walker’s aunt. When he arrested him, Walker was in possession of both marijuana
Cause Nos. 03-14-00789-CR, 03-14-00790-CR, 03-14-00791-CR

George Henry Walker v. The State of Texas

Brief of Appellant 5

and crack cocaine. (R.R. 1, pp. 42-43). The cocaine possession resulted in one of

the cases here under review.

George Walker testified that he had had a troubled childhood, that both his

parents used illegal narcotics, and that he began using at a very young age. (R.R.

1, pp. 49-50). In fact, his testimony details his use of narcotics off and on until his

most recent arrest. Walker described his participation in prison drug treatment

programs in the past as largely ineffective in deterring his drug use when he was

released from prison. (R.R. 1, pp. 53-54, 55-56). He specifically asked the trial

court to “help [him] change” by deferring a finding of guilt in the charged offenses

and requiring his attendance at a substance abuse punishment facility (SAFPF) as a

condition of community supervision. (R.R. 2, p. 64). He testified that he wanted

to see his children grow and to “be there” for his kids, that he needed the help

offered by SAFPF to be a better, productive citizen. (R.R. 2, p. 65).

On cross-examination, the prosecution asked Walker about his prior

convictions and current criminal charges including two assault/family violence

convictions, one of which resulted in a two year prison term; a possession of

cocaine charge arising from his arrest in September of 2014; his failure to appear

to answer the charges resulting from that arrest; home burglaries in Brazos and

Tom Green Counties, the latter of which had resulted in a stint in the penitentiary;
Cause Nos. 03-14-00789-CR, 03-14-00790-CR, 03-14-00791-CR

George Henry Walker v. The State of Texas

Brief of Appellant 6

a theft which resulted in a State Jail conviction and a 540 day sentence in a State

Jail facility; a county charge which had resulted in a 45 day jail sentence, and,

finally, another evading conviction from 2005.

Trial Court Findings and Punishment Assessed

After hearing evidence and argument of counsel in a consolidated hearing,

and after reviewing a pre-sentence investigative report, the trial court found

Walker guilty as charged in all three cases. The trial court also found allegations

of prior convictions for enhancement purposes to be true. In each case, the trial

court assessed punishment at 45 years’ confinement in the Institutional Division of

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice with the sentences to be served

concurrently. (R.R. 2, pp. 94-96). Walker gave due notice of appeal from those

verdicts and sentences. (C.R. 1 [each case], pp. 43 [B 13-0883-SB], 34 [B 14-

0650-SA], and 33 [B 14-0994-SB]), respectively.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

Appellate counsel concludes that the records examined contain no

reversible error or arguable grounds for appeal in any of the referenced causes

the subject of this brief.

PROFESSIONAL EVALUATION OF THERECORD

Counsel has reviewed the appellate records in these cases, which consist
Cause Nos. 03-14-00789-CR, 03-14-00790-CR, 03-14-00791-CR

George Henry Walker v. The State of Texas

Brief of Appellant 7

of the various documents in the respective Clerk’s Records and the

transcript of Walker’s consolidated plea and punishment hearings. As a matter of

her professional judgment, Counsel reluctantly concludes that the record

contains no reversible error. Neither are there any jurisdictional defects apparent

in the records examined. In such a case, where Counsel concludes that there are

no arguable grounds for reversal, she is required to present a professional

evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be

advanced for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Ganious v.

State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). That evaluationfollows.

Arguable Points of Error

The Thirteenth Court of Appeals at San Antonio has provided an

instructive list for consideration when complying with Anders. Accordingly,

Counsel in this case has reviewed Mr. Walker’s records for error centering on

the followingareas:

1. Whether his original indictments in all three cases were

sufficient charging instruments.

2. Whether there were any adverse pretrial rulings, including

but not limited to rulings on motions to suppress, motions to

quash or the like.

3. Whether there was compliance with Texas Code of

Criminal Procedure 26.13 and, if appropriate, Padilla v.

Kennedy, 130
Cause Nos. 03-14-00789-CR, 03-14-00790-CR, 03-14-00791-CR

George Henry Walker v. The State of Texas

Brief of Appellant 8

S. Ct. 1477 (U.S. 2010) in all cases.

4. Whether the issue of Walker’s competency was raised prior to

sentencing, so as to warrant an inquiry by the court, and

whether appellant was mentally competent when the court

accepted his pleas.

5. Whether Walker’s pleas were at all times freely and

voluntarily made.

6. Whether there were any adverse rulings during the

punishment hearing on objections or motions.

7. Whether there was any failure on the part of appellant’s

trial counsel to object to fundamental error.

8. Whether the sentences imposed in all three cases were within

the applicable ranges of punishment.

9. Whether the written judgments for each case accurately

reflect the sentences that were imposed and whether all

credits were properlyapplied.

10. Whether there is evidence to support Walker’s guilty pleas.

11. Whether Walker was denied effective assistance of counsel.

Prior Proceedings

Indictments – all cases

Walker’s original indictments for the felony offenses of 1) evading

arrest/detention, 2) failure to appear, 3) and possession of a controlled substance

tracked the then applicable statutory provisions of TEXAS PENAL CODE
Cause Nos. 03-14-00789-CR, 03-14-00790-CR, 03-14-00791-CR

George Henry Walker v. The State of Texas

Brief of Appellant 9

sections 38.04(b)(2)(A) and 38.10(f) (West 2014) and TEXAS HEALTH

AND SAFETY CODE §481.115(c) (West 2014), respectively. The indictments

met the “requisites of an Indictment” provided in the Code of Criminal

Procedure’s art. 21.02, and thus constituted proper charging instruments. See

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 21.02 (West2014).

Evidentiary Rulings/Fundamental Error

There were no adverse rulings during the plea or punishment hearings, and

no failure on the part of Walker’s trial counsel to object to fundamental error.

Plea Hearing – all cases

Original Compliance with Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 26.13

On November 3, 2014, Walker appeared with his trial attorney before the

trial court in a consolidated plea hearing on the three offenses the subject of this

brief. He entered an open plea of guilty to the trial court to each of the offensesin

open court. (R.R. 1, pp. 10-11). He was properly admonished, and the trial court

secured his waivers of jury trial both orally and in writing in all three cases. (R.R.

2, p. 9), and see in each case, C.R. 1, pp. 24, 10 and 15, respectively). The plea

documents for each case included stipulations of evidence which were signed by

Walker and/or his attorney and which appear proper in all regards. (See C.R. 1,

each case, pp. 18, 21 and 15, respectively).
Cause Nos. 03-14-00789-CR, 03-14-00790-CR, 03-14-00791-CR

George Henry Walker v. The State of Texas

Brief of Appellant 10

Adverse Pre-Hearing Rulings – all cases

There were no adverse pre-hearing rulings in any of the three cases under

review.

Trial Error/Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – allcases

Appellate counsel found no evidence in the records examined which

would support a claim of ineffectiveness of trialcounsel.

Strickland v. Washington, decided by the United States Supreme Court

in 1984 established the standard by which to gauge the adequacy of

representation of counsel and articulated a two-step analysis:

1. Did the attorney’s performance fail to constitute

“reasonably effective assistance,” i.e., did the defense

attorney’s representation fall below an objective standard of

reasonableness under prevailing professional norms?

2. If so, was there a reasonable probability that, but for

counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings

could have been different?

– see Strickland, 466 U.S. 668,

694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2068, 80

L.Ed.2d 674, 690.

(The test in Strickland is properly applied to the punishment phase of a noncapital case as well. See Hernandez v. State, 988 S.W.2d 770, 772 (Tex.

Crim. App.1999)).
Cause Nos. 03-14-00789-CR, 03-14-00790-CR, 03-14-00791-CR

George Henry Walker v. The State of Texas

Brief of Appellant 11

In considering a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a reviewing

court begins with a strong presumption that counsel was effective. Jackson v.

State, 877 S.W.2d 768, 771 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). A reviewing court

presumes counsel’s actions were motivated by sound trial strategy. Id. A

complainant has the burden of rebutting that presumption by evidence from the

record affirmatively supporting the claim. See Jackson v. State, 973 S.W.2d

954, 955 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). However, even if a complainant can prove

such error occurred, he must then prove that but for the error, there is a

reasonable probability the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.

See Burruss v. State, 20 S.W.3d 179, 186 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2000, pet.

ref’d).

Here, evidence adduced at Walker’s plea and sentencing hearings

included his admission to the allegations in his indictments. Testimony in his

punishment hearing indicated that he had had a number of brushes with the law

that had resulted in a number of misdemeanor and felony convictions. In other

words, the un-objected to punishment evidence showed that Walker had an

extensive criminal history. In light of the testimony, even if examination of his

plea or sentencing hearings revealed instances where his trial counsel possibly

committed an error of some kind in his representation (which the record does
Cause Nos. 03-14-00789-CR, 03-14-00790-CR, 03-14-00791-CR

George Henry Walker v. The State of Texas

Brief of Appellant 12

not support), it is highly unlikely that but for such error, there was a

reasonable probability that the outcomes of Walker’s hearings would have

been different.

Sufficiency of Evidence – all cases

Here, Walker admitted his guilt in each offense as alleged. When he pleads

guilty, a criminal defendant waives his right to challenge the sufficiency of the

evidence. Keller v. State, 125 S.W.3d 600, 605 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st

Dist.] 2003), pet. dism’d, improvidently granted, 146 S.W.3d 677 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2004) (per curiam); see also Staggs v. State, 314 S.W.3d 155, 159

(Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.). In such cases, review is

limited to determining whether the evidence supports the conviction under

article 1.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See, TEX. CODE

CRIM. PROC. art. 1.15 (West 2014) (stating that State must “introduce

evidence into the record showing the guilt of the defendant and said evidence

shall be accepted by the court as the basis for its judgment and in no event shall

a person charged be convicted upon his plea without sufficient evidence to

support the same.”); Keller, 125 S.W.3d at 605 (citing TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. art. 1.15 (West 2005)).The state must offer sufficient proof to support

any judgment based on a guilty plea in a felony case tried before a court.
Cause Nos. 03-14-00789-CR, 03-14-00790-CR, 03-14-00791-CR

George Henry Walker v. The State of Texas

Brief of Appellant 13

Keller, 125 S.W.3d at 604 (citation omitted); see also Ex parte Williams,

703 S.W.2d 674, 678 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986). “The State, however, is not

required to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; the supporting

evidence must simply embrace every essential element of the charged offense.”

Staggs, 314 S.W.3d at 159.

Article 1.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires the

State to “introduce evidence into the record showing the guilt of the defendant

and said evidence shall be accepted by the court as the basis for its judgment and

in no event shall a person charged be convicted upon his plea without sufficient

evidence to support the same.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 1.15; see

Menefee v. State, 287 S.W.3d 9, 13-14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). The evidence

supporting a guilty plea may take several forms. Menefee, 287 S.W.3d at

13. Article 1.15 provides that the evidence may be stipulated if the defendant in

such a case consents in writing, in open court, to waive the appearance,

confrontation, and cross-examination of witnesses, and further consents either to

an oral stipulation of the evidence and testimony or to the introduction of

testimony by affidavits, written statements of witnesses, and any other

documentary evidence in support of the judgment of the court. See, TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 1.15 (West 2014). Here, there is sufficient
Cause Nos. 03-14-00789-CR, 03-14-00790-CR, 03-14-00791-CR

George Henry Walker v. The State of Texas

Brief of Appellant 14

supporting evidence to uphold Walker’s pleas of guilty. In each case, his plea

documents included a judicial confession and stipulation of evidence.

Competency – all cases

There was no issue of competency raised prior to Walker’s pleas or

sentencing in any of the cases under review. Further, there is no evidence in his

trial records to suggest that Walker was mentally incompetent to stand trial, and he

presented no evidence suggestive of the defense of insanity. Walker’s responses at

his plea hearing and his testimony at his subsequent punishment hearing appear to

be competent, understandable and coherent. In neither instance does he appear

confused or unable to understand or answer questions posed to him by either the

court or counsel. In short, his testimony does not suggest any evidence of

incompetency.

Sufficiency – Punishment—all cases

The trial court assessed the following sentences upon conclusion of

Walker’s plea and punishment hearings:

For the felony offense of evading arrest/detention – 45 years.

For the felony offense of failure to appear – 45 years.
Cause Nos. 03-14-00789-CR, 03-14-00790-CR, 03-14-00791-CR

George Henry Walker v. The State of Texas

Brief of Appellant 15

For the felony offense of possession of a controlled substance –

45 years.

A review of the evidence for sufficiency is inappropriate with respect to

the assessment of punishment. See, Bradfield v. State, 42 S.W.3d 350, 351 (Tex.

App. – Texarkana 2001, pet. ref’d); Kanouse v. State, 958 S.W.2d 509, 510

(Tex. App. – Beaumont 1996, no pet.)(citing Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d

809, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)). Here, the sentences ultimately assessed by

the trial court were within the applicable punishment ranges for the subject

offenses, and none of the sentences on their face appear “unreasonable” or

“irrational” in light of the testimony adduced at Walker’s punishment hearing.

See, Nunez v. State, 565 S.W.2d 536 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Thus, Walker

cannot establish any error arising from the punishments assessed by the trial

court in any of his three cases.

Standard of Review – ―Frivolous Appeals‖—AllCases

In an Anders case, a reviewing court must, “after a full examination of

all proceedings, [...] decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386

U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-

11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Coronado v. State, 996 S.W.2d 283, 285 (Tex.

App. – Waco 2000, pet. ref’d). An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or “without
Cause Nos. 03-14-00789-CR, 03-14-00790-CR, 03-14-00791-CR

George Henry Walker v. The State of Texas

Brief of Appellant 16

merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals,

486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10, 108 S.C. 1895, 1902, 100 L.Ed.2d 4440 (1988).

Arguments are frivolous if they “cannot conceivably persuade the court.” Id. at

426, 108 S. Ct. at 1901. An appeal is not frivolous if based on “arguable

grounds.” Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at511.

CONCLUSION

Here, appellate counsel cannot in good faith argue that there is a basis

“in law or in fact” that an error occurred in any of Walker’s three cases. For

that reason, appellate counsel is required to move for leave to withdraw in each

case to allow appellant the opportunity to submit his briefs in response to this

brief should he choose to do so. See, Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1991). Accompanying this brief then, attached as Appendix 1, is a

copy of appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw on those grounds in each case.

An original of the motion has been separately filed with this Court in each case.

NOTICE TO CLIENT

Counsel hereby affirms that she has notified George Henry Walker,

appellant, of the filing of this brief in each of the referenced cases, of his right

to file pro se response briefs should he choose to do so and of his right to

examine his appellate records per the applicable Texas Rules of Appellate
Cause Nos. 03-14-00789-CR, 03-14-00790-CR, 03-14-00791-CR

George Henry Walker v. The State of Texas

Brief of Appellant 17

Procedure to accomplish that goal. Notice of those rights and of Counsel’s

motion to withdraw in each case was provided to Mr. Walker by both certified

mail, return receipt requested, and by first-class mail at his last known mailing

address at the date of this filing,to-wit:

George Henry Walker

TDCJ No. 01967140

J. Middleton Transfer Facility

13055 FM 3522

Abilene, Texas79601

COMPLIANCE WITH KELLY v. STATE

Finally, Counsel also hereby affirms that she has provided to Mr.

Walker motions for access to his appellate records as required by the dictates

of Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) for each of the

referenced cases. (See copy of same in Appendix 2).

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Counsel respectfully prays that this Court permit her

to withdraw from each of these cases after this Court’s own examination of the

records and to afford Mr. Walker his right to file pro se response briefs if he

wishes to do so.

COPELAND LAWFIRM

P.O. Box 399

Cedar Park, TX 78613
Cause Nos. 03-14-00789-CR, 03-14-00790-CR, 03-14-00791-CR

George Henry Walker v. The State of Texas

Brief of Appellant 18

Phone: 512.897.8126

Fax: 512.215.8114

Email: ecopeland63@yahoo.com

By: /s/ Erika Copeland

Erika Copeland

State Bar No. 16075250

Attorney for Appellant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND OF

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 9 and KELLY v.STATE

This is to certify that on April 13, 2015, a true and correct copy of the

above and foregoing document was served on George McCrea, District Attorney,

Court Street Annex, 124 W. Beauregard, San Angelo, Texas and on George

Henry Walker, TDCJ No. 01967140, J. Middleton Transfer Facility, 13055 FM

3522, Abilene, Texas 79601, in accordance with the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure, and that Appellant’s brief is in compliance with Rule 9 of the

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and that portion which must be included

under Rule 9.4(i)(1) contains 3397 words. Further, Counsel certifies that she

has complied with the dictates of Kelly v. State insofar as providing motions

for Mr. Walker to gain access to his appellate records if he so chooses.

/s/ Erika Copeland

Erika Copeland
APPENDIX 1
IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AT AUSTIN, TEXAS

GEORGE HENRY WALKER, § CAUSE NO. 03-14-00789-CR

Appellant § TRIAL COURT NO. B 13-0883-SB

§

CAUSE NO. 03-14-00790-CR

V. § TRIAL COURT NO. B 14-0650-SA

§

THE STATE OF TEXAS, § CAUSE NO. 03-14-00791-CR

Appellee § TRIAL COURT NO. B 14-0994-SB

MOTION TO WITHDRAW

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:

NOW COMES Erika Copeland, PO Box 399, Cedar Park, Texas 78613,

appellate attorney for George Henry Walker, and respectfully moves this

Honorable Court to allow said attorney to withdraw as attorney of record in this

matter, terminating his representation of the above referenced appellant and for

good cause would respectfully show this Honorable Court asfollows:

I.

Contemporaneous with the filing of this Motion to Withdraw, counsel has

filed an Anders brief. Withdrawal of counsel is necessary to permit Mr. Walker to

file a pro se response brief, if he so desires.
II.

Pending Deadlines

Appellant’s brief is due May 11, 2015.

III.

Documents Filed and Prepared for Defendant

Counsel has prepared a docketing statement and Appellant’s Brief in these

causes, and has filed same with this Court. Counsel previously prepared

Appellant’s Notices of Appeal, Requests for Reporter’s Record and Designations

of Clerk’s Record.

IV.

Notice of Last Known Address of Defendant

Counsel has notified Appellant of the filing of this Motion to Withdraw and

of the filing of this brief by mailing a copy of this Motion to Appellant’s last

known mailing address by regular, first class mail and by certified mail, return

receipt requested, and addressed asfollows:

George Henry Walker

TDCJ No. 01967140

J. Middleton Transfer Facility

13055 FM 3522

Abilene, Texas79601

V.

WHEREFORE, Movant prays this Honorable Court to allow Movant to

withdraw from the representation of appellant and would, in all things, relieve
Movant herein, discharging Movant from her obligations and responsibilities to

this appellant in this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

COPELAND LAW FIRM

P.O. Box 399

Cedar Park, TX 78613

Pho: 512.897.8126

Fax: 512.215.8114

Email: ecopeland63@yahoo.com

/s/ Erika Copeland

Erika Copeland

State Bar No. 04801500

Attorney for Appellant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND OF

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 9

This is to certify that on April 13, 2015, a true and correct copy

of the above and foregoing document was served on George McCrea, District

Attorney, Court Street Annex, 124 W. Beauregard, San Angelo, Texas and on

George Henry Walker, TDCJ No. 01967140, J. Middleton Transfer Facility,

13055 FM 3522, Abilene, Texas 79601, in accordance with the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure, and that Appellant’s brief is in compliance with Rule 9

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and that portion which must be

included under Rule 9.4(i)(1) contains 451 words.

/s/ Erika Copeland

Erika Copeland
APPENDIX 2
IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AT AUSTIN, TEXAS

GEORGE HENRY WALKER, § CAUSE NO. 03-14-00789-CR

Appellant § TRIAL COURT NO. B 13-0883-SB

§

CAUSE NO. 03-14-00790-CR

V. § TRIAL COURT NO. B 14-0650-SA

§

THE STATE OF TEXAS, § CAUSE NO. 03-14-00791-CR

Appellee § TRIAL COURT NO. B 14-0994-SB

MOTION FOR ACCESS TO APPELLATE RECORD

NOW COMES George Henry Walker, TDCJ No. 01967140,

Middleton Transfer Facility, 13055 FM 3522, Abilene, Texas 79601 and

respectfully moves this Honorable Court to grant him access to the appellate

record in the above-referenced causes in order to effectuate his right to file a

response to the Anders briefs filed herein by Appellant’s appellate counsel.

Respectfully submitted,

George Henry Walker

TDCJ No. 01967140

J. Middleton Transfer

Facility

13055 FM 3522

Abilene, Texas79601

Date:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND OF

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 9

This is to certify that on April , 2015, a true and

correct copy of the above and foregoing document was served on George

McCrea, District Attorney, Court Street Annex, 124 W. Beauregard, San

Angelo, Texas in accordance with the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure, and that Appellant’s moion is in compliance with Rule 9 of

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and that portion which must be

included under Rule 9.4(i)(1) contains 238 words.

George Henry Walker

TDCJ No. 01967140

J. Middleton Transfer

Facility

13055 FM 3522

Abilene, Texas79601

Date: