NO. 12-13-00363-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

CODY LAMONT BLAYLOCK, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 114TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Cody Lamont Blaylock appeals his conviction for engaging in organized criminal 

activity. 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 indicted for the first degree felony offense of engaging in organized 

criminal activity by committing aggravated assault with a deadly weapon as a member of a 

criminal street gang.1 Appellant and the State entered a negotiated plea agreement for an agreed 

punishment of deferred adjudication community supervision for ten years in exchange for 

Appellant's “guilty” plea and pleas of “true” to the allegations that he used a deadly weapon and 

that he was a member of a criminal street gang at the time of the offense. 

In accordance with the agreement, the trial court placed Appellant on deferred 

adjudication community supervision for a ten year period in December 2010. The trial court also 

 

1

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2) (West 2011), § 71.02(a)(1), (b) (West Supp. 2014).
2

considered two additional charges in determining whether to place Appellant on deferred 

adjudication community supervision.2

The State filed an application to proceed to final adjudication in May 2012. Appellant 

pleaded “true” to most of the allegations. After a hearing, the trial court denied the application.

In October 2013, the State filed another application to proceed to final adjudication. The 

State twice amended its application. In the application, the State alleged that Appellant failed to

abide by the terms of his community supervision in that he (1) committed the offense of criminal 

trespass, (2) failed to pay for urinalysis testing on numerous occasions, (3) failed to pay 

supervision fees and court costs, and (4) failed to obtain a GED as ordered by the court. At the 

subsequent hearing, Appellant pleaded “true” to each paragraph in the application. The trial 

court adjudicated Appellant’s guilt, found him guilty of the offense, and found that the 

allegations that he used a deadly weapon and was a member of street gang were true. After a 

hearing on punishment, the trial court sentenced Appellant to twenty years of imprisonment. 

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 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. 

[Panel Op.] 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. 

Appellant filed a pro se brief in which he raised issues that his sentence was excessive 

and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when he was advised to plead “guilty” and 

“true” to the State’s application to proceed to final adjudication, rendering the pleas involuntary. 

We have reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 

S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

 

2

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.45(a) (West 2011).
3

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. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We are in agreement with Appellant’s counsel that the 

appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted, and 

the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2.

As a result of our disposition of this case, 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 this case 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 petition for discretionary review pro se. 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. 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 Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman,

252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered March 4, 2015.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MARCH 4, 2015

NO. 12-13-00363-CR

CODY LAMONT BLAYLOCK,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-1070-10)

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 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.