Court Opinion

ID: 9382233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-25 06:10:40.216513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:37.903381
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed March 23, 2023

                                      In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                   __________

                               No. 11-22-00115-CR
                                   __________

                     CLINTON SAUNDERS, Appellant
                                         V.
                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 161st District Court
                             Ector County, Texas
                     Trial Court Cause No. B-21-0338-CR

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
      The jury convicted Appellant, Clinton Saunders, of the first-degree felony
offense of murder. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(c) (West 2019). At the
punishment phase, the jury found that Appellant caused the death of the victim under
the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause, making
the offense of conviction a second-degree felony. Id. § 19.02(d). The evidence
presented at the guilt/innocence phase of trial included two surveillance videos that
depicted Appellant shooting the victim seven times. The jury heard punishment
evidence and assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for ten years. The
trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly. We affirm.
        Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed in this court a motion to
withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and
conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that there are
no arguable issues to present on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of
the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of both
the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel advised Appellant of his right
to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised
Appellant of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 68.      Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
        Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following
the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed
the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1
        We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the
trial court.
                                                                 PER CURIAM

March 23, 2023
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

        1
         We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68
of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

                                                    2