Court Opinion

ID: 3086466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 02:49:43.035152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:50:51.520680
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed November 17,
2011
 
                                                                       In The
                                                                              
  Eleventh
Court of Appeals
                                                                   __________
 
                                                         No. 11-11-00088-CR
                                                    __________
 
                             CARL
RICHARD ELMORE, Appellant
 
                                                             V.
 
                                      STATE
OF TEXAS, Appellee

 
                                   On
Appeal from the 104th District Court
                                                            Taylor
County, Texas
                                                    Trial
Court Cause No. 17904B
 

 
M
E M O R A N D U M    O P I N I O N
Carl
Richard Elmore entered an open plea of no contest to the offense of aggravated
assault arising from an incident wherein he cut Justin Scott Cook on the arm with
a knife.  In this regard, the State agreed to dismiss another charge of
aggravated assault arising from an incident wherein appellant struck another
individual on the head with a baseball bat.  After receiving evidence
pertaining to guilt and punishment, the trial court found appellant guilty of
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and assessed his punishment at
confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice for a term of sixteen years.  We dismiss the appeal.
Appellant’s
court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw.  The motion is
supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously
examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that
the appeal is frivolous.  Counsel has provided appellant with a copy of the
brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a
response to counsel’s brief.  Court-appointed counsel has complied with the
requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State,
813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807

(Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App.
1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v.
State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.).
            Appellant
has filed a pro se response to counsel’s motion to withdraw and supporting
brief.  In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court of
appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an
opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible
error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the
trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.  Schulman,
252 S.W.3d 403; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005).
            Following the procedures outlined in Anders
and Schulman, we have independently re-viewed the record, and we agree
that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed.  Schulman, 252
S.W.3d at 409. 
            We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise appellant that he may file a
petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals seeking review by that court. Tex.
R. App. P. 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the attorney representing the
defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down,
send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of
the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review
under Rule 68.”).  Likewise, this court advises appellant that he may file a
petition for discretionary review pursuant to Tex.
R. App. P. 68.
 The
motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.  
 
 
                                                                                                            PER
CURIAM
November 17,
2011
Do not publish. 
See Tex. R. App. P.
47.2(b).
Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Kalenak, J.