Court Opinion

ID: 9351632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-02 14:06:46.317218+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:01:11.196751
License: Public Domain

In the
        Court of Appeals
Second Appellate District of Texas
         at Fort Worth
     ___________________________

          No. 02-21-00154-CR
          No. 02-21-00155-CR
     ___________________________

 WILLIAM NEIL GALLAGHER, Appellant

                    V.

          THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 1
           Tarrant County, Texas
   Trial Court Nos. 1607330D, 1607333D

 Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.
 Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack
                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant William Neil Gallagher appeals his convictions for theft of property

of $300,000 or more, forgery of a financial instrument of the elderly, misapplication of

fiduciary or financial property of $300,000 or more, securing execution of a document

by deception, and exploitation of the elderly (two counts). See Tex. Penal Code Ann.

§§ 31.03(e)(7), 32.21(e-1), 32.45(c)(7), 32.46(b)(7), 32.53(c). Gallagher entered an

open plea of guilty to all charges.       The trial court sentenced him to (1) life

imprisonment for each of the offenses of theft of property of $300,000 or more,

misapplication of fiduciary or financial property greater than $300,000, and securing

execution of a document by deception and (2) ten years’ confinement for each of the

offenses of exploitation of the elderly and forgery of a financial instrument of the

elderly, with the sentences to run concurrently.

      On appeal, Gallagher’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in

which he argues that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s motion and brief meet the

requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the

record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See 386 U.S. 738,

744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). In compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel provided

Gallagher with copies of his brief and motion to withdraw, and he informed

Gallagher of his right to file a pro se response, to review the record, and to seek

discretionary review pro se should this court deny relief. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Gallagher filed a pro se response in which he argued that the

                                           2
time he has spent thus far in prison is “enough to satisfy the sin/crime that [he]

committed.”     The State agrees with counsel’s position that Gallagher has no

meritorious grounds upon which to advance an appeal, and it has declined to file a

response to counsel’s brief and motion to withdraw.

      After an appellant’s court-appointed counsel fulfills the requirements of Anders

and files a motion to withdraw on the ground that the appeal is frivolous, this court is

obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record to see if there is any

arguable ground that may be raised on his behalf. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503,

511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

      After carefully reviewing the record and Gallagher’s pro se response, we agree

with counsel that this appeal is wholly without merit, as we have found nothing in the

record that might arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,

827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw

and affirm the trial court’s judgments.

                                                       /s/ Dana Womack

                                                       Dana Womack
                                                       Justice

Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: December 29, 2022

                                            3