### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-11-00811- CR NO. 03-11-00812- CR NO. 03-11-00813- CR

Richard Earl Dennis, Jr., Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TO M GREEN CO UNTY, 119 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT

NOS . A-1 0-0 607- SA, A-1 0-0 608- SA & A-1 0-0 609- SA HO NORAB LE B EN WO ODW ARD, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

These are appea ls pursuant to Anders v. Californi a , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). I n trial court cause number A-10-0607- SA (appe llate cause number 03-11-00811- CR), the jury found appellant Richard Earl Dennis, J r., g uilty of deadly conduct. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.05 (West 2011). I n trial court cause number A- 1 0

- 0 6 0 8

- SA (appe llate cause number 03-11-00812- CR), the j ury found Dennis g uilty of attempted capital murder of a peace o ff i ce r. S ee i d

. § 19.03(a) (1) (W es t S u p p . 2012). I n trial court cause number A-10-0609- SA (appe llate cause number 03-11- 00813-CR), Dennis pleade d gu i l t y t o t he offe nse of evading arr est with a motor vehicle. See id

. § 38.04 (West Supp. 2012). The jury assessed punishment at two-y ear s’ imprisonment for the offe nse of evading arr est, fiftee n-y ear s’ imprisonment for the offe nse of deadly conduct, and life in prison for the of

fense of attempted c apital murder . These a ppeals followe d.The jury hear d evidenc e t h at o n May 24, 2010, San Ang elo police office r

Robert R og er attempted to pull over, for an ex pired re g istration, a ca r filled with three passeng ers and driven by Dennis. Rather than stopping, Dennis attempted to evade Offic er Roge r, acc eler ating
to speeds in excess of one hundred miles per hour. The chase lasted for sever al minutes proce eding along streets, highw ay s, y ards, and throug h a school zone. These fac ts wer e not only rec ounted for the jury throug h Roge r’s t ri al t es t imony , but also ref lected in his police cruiser ’s in-ca r video of the chase. Eventually , Dennis l ost control of the car i n a residential y ard. Offic er Ro ger rammed Dennis’s car with his police cr uiser, ending the automobile chase, and stepped out of hi s vehicle. At the same time, Dennis jumped out of his car , leveled his handg un at Offic er Roge r, fired a single

s h o t i n to the office r’s chest from betwee n twelve and twenty fee t awa y , and then fled on foo t

. For tunately , Offic er Roge r wa s wea ring a bulletproof ve st and survived. The jury also viewed the in-ca r video from the cruiser of another police office r, L ouis Kolb, who arr ived at the scene moments afte r the shooting occur

red. Following the shooting, law enforce m en t mobiliz ed all available forc es to locate Dennis. L ater that evening , the S an Ange lo Police SW AT t eam surrounded a residential home in which Dennis was suspected to be hiding. SW AT office r David Olsen knocked down the front door with a battering ram, but found the entra nce had been barr icade d within. Shortly there afte r, a shot

was fired from within the home, while the SW AT team was still l o cate d near the entra nce. The S W AT t ea m then fired a round of tear g as into the home in an eff ort to g et Dennis to surr en d er . Acc ording to various witnesses, Dennis made a statement to the eff ect that the police should “come i n and g et him.” I nstead, the SW AT team opted to fire another round of tear g as into t h e h o m e. Shortly there afte r, De nnis ex ited the home, droppe d his handg un, and wa s place d under a rre st. 2Subsequent investigat i o n reve aled that a bullet embedde d in Offic er Roge r’s

bulletproof vest h ad b ee n fired from the g un in Dennis’s possession at the time of his arr est, and that the bullet matched c artridg es still remaining in the g un. I n addition, police locate d a bullet in the ceiling of the home that also matched the bullet fi red at Offic er Roge r. An expert testified as to the trajec tory

of the bullet fire d in the home and Dennis’s likely location when he fire d towards the doorwa

y . The defense offe red only one witness du ri n g t h e guilt/innocence phase of the t rial,

one of Dennis’s passeng ers, Kelsi Hauk. Hauk testified that the night befor e the chase , she, Dennis, and another passeng er, Cazz Carr, had smoke d “meth” toge ther, and that they all had been awake for se vera l day s straig ht.

After the jury found Dennis g uilty of evading arr est (to which he had pleade d g uilty ), deadly conduct, and attempted capital murder, the jury proce eded to consider punishment. Dennis pleade d true to an enhanc ement para g raph alleg i n g a prior conviction conce rning possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine. The State called sever al witnesses during sentenc ing who testified to their knowledg e of Dennis’s prior criminal offe nses and Dennis’s association with

a criminal street g ang . Also admit t ed i n t o evidenc e was photogr aphic evidenc e of Dennis’s association wi t h t h e cr i minal street g ang . The defe nse also offe red sever al witnesses during
sentenc ing. These witnesses profe ssed a belief that Dennis could be reha bilitated and vouched for what they believed w as De nnis’s g ood char acte r. After final arg

uments and delibera tion, the jury assessed punishment as noted above and the district cour

t sentence d Dennis ac cording ly . This appea l followed.

3I n eac h cause , Dennis’s co u rt -appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw

supported by a brief concluding that the appea l is frivolous and without merit. The briefs meet the require ments of Anders v. Calif or n i a by prese nting a profe ssional evalua tion of the rec ord demonstrating why there are no arg uable g rounds to be advanc ed. See 386 U.S. at 744-45; see also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State , 573 S.W .2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie

v. State , 516 S.W .2d 6 8 4 (T ex . Crim. App. 1974); Jack son v. State , 485 S.W .2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). Dennis was mailed copies of counsel’s briefs and advised o f h i s ri gh t to examine the appellate rec ord and to fi le a pro se brief. I n response , Dennis reque sted, and was g rante d, a ninety -day extension of time to file his pro se brief. The deadline has passed, and Dennis has failed to file a brie f or other

wise conta ct the Court to reque st additional tim e. We have revie wed the rec ords and counsel’s bri ef s and ag ree that the appea ls are frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the rec ords that might arg uably support the appea ls. I n eac h cause , counsel’s motion to withdraw is g rante d.

The judg ments of conviction ar e af firmed.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton and H enson Affir med Filed: De cembe r 21, 2012 Do Not Publish

4