Court Opinion

ID: 3071492
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 00:36:47.351037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:41:44.175115
License: Public Domain

NOS. 12-13-00348-CR
                                      12-13-00349-CR

                          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

               TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                     TYLER, TEXAS

JERRY DON FLEETWOOD,                             §      APPEAL FROM THE 7TH
APPELLANT

V.                                               §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                         §      SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                      PER CURIAM
       Jerry Don Fleetwood appeals his convictions for injury to a child and tampering with a
witness. 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 separate indictments with the offenses of injury to a child and
tampering with a witness, both third degree felonies. Appellant entered an “open” plea of guilty
to the offenses charged in the indictments. Appellant and his counsel signed various documents
in connection with his guilty pleas, including a stipulation of evidence in which Appellant swore
that the facts alleged in the indictments were true and correct, and constituted the evidence in the
cases. The trial court accepted Appellant’s pleas.
       After a punishment hearing, the trial court adjudged Appellant guilty of injury to a child
and assessed his punishment at six years of imprisonment.          The trial court also adjudged
Appellant guilty of tampering with a witness and assessed his punishment at ten years of
imprisonment. However, the trial court ordered that imposition of Appellant’s punishment for
the tampering with a witness offense be suspended, and that he be placed on community
supervision for ten years.          Further, the trial court ordered that these sentences should run
concurrently. These appeals followed.

                             ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
         Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating 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. From our
review of counsel’s brief, it is apparent that counsel is well acquainted with the facts in these
cases. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1978), counsel’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history
of the cases, and further states that counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. We
have reviewed the records for reversible error and have found none. 1 See Bledsoe v. State, 178
S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

                                                   CONCLUSION
         As required, Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw in both cases. See In
re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State,
813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We are in agreement with Appellant’s counsel
that the appeals are wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motions for leave to withdraw are hereby
granted, and the trial court’s judgments are affirmed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2.
         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 further review of these cases by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must
either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or he must file a pro se petition
for discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Any petition for
discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the

         1
            Counsel for Appellant certified that he provided Appellant with a copy of his brief and informed
Appellant that he had the right to file his own brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief, but the time for
filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief.

                                                          2
day 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.             Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the
requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4;
In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.
Opinion delivered July 31, 2014.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

                                              (DO NOT PUBLISH)

                                                           3
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                            JUDGMENT

                                              JULY 31, 2014

                                          NO. 12-13-00348-CR

                                    JERRY DON FLEETWOOD,
                                            Appellant
                                               V.
                                      THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                            Appellee

                                  Appeal from the 7th District Court
                         of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-0563-13)

                        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., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                            JUDGMENT

                                              JULY 31, 2014

                                          NO. 12-13-00349-CR

                                    JERRY DON FLEETWOOD,
                                            Appellant
                                               V.
                                      THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                            Appellee

                                  Appeal from the 7th District Court
                         of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-1021-13)

                        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., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.