Court Opinion

ID: 2957485
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-17 01:56:29.450251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:02.144649
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                         NO. 03-12-00104-CR

                              Edward Lamoyne King, Appellant

                                                 v.

                                  The State of Texas, Appellee

 FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 26TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
   NO. 10-1235-K26, HONORABLE BILLY RAY STUBBLEFIELD, JUDGE PRESIDING

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

               A jury found appellant Edward Lamoyne King guilty of aggravated assault with

a deadly weapon. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02(a)(2) (West 2011). After finding that

appellant had at least two previous felony convictions, the jury assessed punishment at thirty-five

years’ imprisonment. See id. § 12.42(d) (West 2011) (enhancing punishment to life or no less than

twenty-five years’ imprisonment for felony conviction where defendant has previously been

convicted of two sequential felonies).

               Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by

a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements

of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why

there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967);
Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

86–87 (1988).

                Appellant received a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his right to examine

the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d

at 766. We have not received a pro se brief from appellant.

                We have conducted an independent review of the record, including appellate

counsel’s brief, and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d

at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel

that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous.

                Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

                                              __________________________________________

                                              Scott K. Field, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field

Affirmed

Filed: March 6, 2013

Do Not Publish

                                                 2