NO. 12-22-00223-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DARRYL GLENN DAVIS,

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 114TH 

JUDICAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Darryl Glenn Davis appeals his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. 

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

On April 5, 2021, Appellant and Clinton Smith, who knew each other through a mutual 

acquaintance for approximately a week, consumed alcohol and played dominoes and cards at a 

residence. The pair split and Smith arrived at a residence at 713 Boyd Street, Tyler, Texas. The 

owner of that home allowed Smith to park his pickup truck at the home and temporarily reside in 

the truck.

Later that same day, Deborah Eadson drove Appellant in her white sedan to 713 Boyd 

Street. Once there, Appellant confronted Smith, as Smith sat in his truck, regarding $40.00

Appellant claimed Smith owed him. 

Smith claimed that he denied owing Appellant money. Appellant observed money in the 

dash of Smith’s truck and became irritated. Appellant walked to Eadson’s car, retrieved a tire 

iron, returned to Smith, and struck him on the head with the tire iron. 
2

In contrast, according to Appellant, as the two disputed the debt, Smith attacked 

Appellant with a knife, and Appellant, finding a tire iron in the back of a nearby pickup truck, 

swung the tire iron wildly at Smith in self-defense and the tire iron struck Smith in the head. 

Appellant claimed that he wrestled with Smith, accounting for blood on Appellant’s shirt, and 

after another person intervened, Appellant was able to run away from Smith. 

Tyler Police Department Officers ultimately arrested Appellant. Appellant was indicted 

for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.1 The indictment also alleged that Appellant had 

two prior felony convictions, elevating his punishment level to that of a first-degree felony with a 

minimum imprisonment term of twenty-five years.2 Appellant pleaded “not guilty” to the 

offense. Appellant executed a waiver of a jury trial, and the matter proceeded to a bench trial. 

In addition to the above dueling accounts of the melee by Appellant and Smith, the 

evidence at trial showed that Tyler Police Department Officers responded to a 911 call of an 

assault occurring at the home. When Tyler Police Department Officer Caleb Westbrook arrived, 

he parked his vehicle behind Eadson’s white sedan. He observed a man in the passenger seat,

later identified as Appellant, discard objects from the open window that were subsequently 

revealed to be a used crack cocaine pipe and a small container of crack cocaine. The officer 

observed that Appellant wore a plaid shirt, just as described by the 911 caller. Appellant denied 

being involved in the fracas for which the officers were called, and initially denied tossing any 

objects out of the window.3

Officer Westbrook noticed that Appellant was sweating and out of breath. The officer 

observed a “decent” amount of blood on Appellant’s shirt. The officers discovered a tire iron 

with human hair and blood in Eadson’s white sedan near where Appellant had been seated when 

they first arrived. At the scene, officers observed fresh and bloody wounds on Smith’s head. At 

trial, Appellant claimed that Smith “ran into” the tire iron as Smith attempted to stab Appellant.

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 22.02(a) (West Supp. 2022).

2 Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon as charged is usually a second-degree felony, punishable by 

imprisonment for a term of no less than two years and no more than twenty years. See id. §§ 12.33(a) (West 2019), 

22.02(b). However, because Appellant pleaded “true” to the State’s enhancement allegations regarding his prior

felony convictions, the trial court could assess a punishment of either life imprisonment, or imprisonment for a term 

of no less than 25 years and no more than 99 years. See id. § 12.42(d) (West 2019).

3 Appellant later admitted that the drugs and pipe belonged to him.
3

The evidence showed that Appellant struck the victim more than once in the head with the tire 

iron. 

In contrast to Appellant’s claim of self-defense, the trial court heard evidence that 

Appellant’s physical description and shirt matched the information that the 911 caller provided 

to the dispatcher. The caller also described the assault on the phone as it occurred and did not 

mention that the victim had a knife or that he took any defensive action. Instead, the caller only 

referred to Appellant striking the victim in the head with a tire iron. Furthermore, in contrast to 

Appellant’s account that a third person intervened, namely the homeowner at 713 Boyd Street, 

there was no testimony or other evidence to corroborate this alleged fact. The trial court also 

heard evidence that the trail of blood was only inside Smith’s truck and in the vicinity of the

truck, and no blood trail led towards Eadson’s vehicle. In fact, the evidence showed that the 

vehicle was located approximately 100 feet away “down the road” from the victim’s truck in the 

parking area of the home, allowing Appellant to escape rather than return to attack Smith. 

The trial court, as the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses, could have rationally 

concluded that Appellant returned to Eadson’s vehicle, and instead of fleeing after escaping the 

alleged threat, he retrieved the tire iron, returned to Smith’s vehicle, and struck him in the head 

with it. Smith consented to a search of his person, his truck, and the area around his truck. The 

officers also searched the curtilage around the home and did not find a knife of any sort. In 

conclusion, the trial court could have rationally inferred from this evidence that Appellant did 

not act in self-defense and committed the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. 

After the bench trial, the trial court found Appellant “guilty” of the offense and made an 

affirmative finding that Appellant used or exhibited a deadly weapon during the commission of 

the offense. During the subsequent punishment hearing, Appellant pleaded “true” to both 

enhancement allegations. The trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at sixty 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 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 
4

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.4

 

Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief in which he challenged the sufficiency of the 

evidence, particularly challenging the credibility of the witnesses and their substantive 

testimony. As part of this issue, Appellant appears to raise various evidentiary sub-issues such 

as his allegation that the 911 call was improperly authenticated and the trial court allowed 

inadmissible hearsay into evidence. He also alleges that the trial court had an improper bias 

against him, and that the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct. We reviewed the record for 

reversible error and found none. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005).

CONCLUSION

As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s 

counsel 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 and finding no reversible error, we grant Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. 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 either the date of this opinion or the date that 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 

4 In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, 

notified Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, 

and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 

313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). 
5

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 July 31, 2023.

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

JULY 31, 2023

NO. 12-22-00223-CR

DARRYL GLENN DAVIS,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0988-21)

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, for which execution may issue, 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.