Court Opinion

ID: 9401114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-10 10:09:51.481333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:50.874352
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-22-00231-CR

                          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

               TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                     TYLER, TEXAS

CLAYTON ALAN MEISCH,                             §      APPEAL FROM THE 145TH
APPELLANT

V.                                               §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                         §      NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                      PER CURIAM
       Clayton Alan Meisch appeals following the revocation of his community supervision.
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 pleaded “guilty” to one count of aggravated assault and a second count of
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Appellant to
imprisonment for ten years on the first count but suspended Appellant’s sentence and placed him
on community supervision for ten years. As to the second count, the trial court deferred finding
Appellant “guilty” and placed him on community supervision for ten years.
       Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision and
to adjudicate guilt, in which it alleged that Appellant violated certain terms and conditions of his
community supervision. Specifically, the State contended that Appellant violated the terms of
his community supervision by violating the law, having committed the offenses of evading arrest
or detention with a motor vehicle, possessing methamphetamine, and possessing marijuana.
       A hearing was conducted on the State’s motion, at which Appellant pleaded “not true” to
the aforementioned violations alleged in the State’s motion. In support of its motion, the State
elicited testimony from, among others, Nacogdoches County Sheriff’s Deputy Joshua Sparks.
Sparks testified that, on April 6, 2019, he attempted to make contact with Appellant following a
complaint that he was at his father’s property engaging in harassment. Sparks testified that he
pulled his patrol vehicle up to the rear of the Dodge Charger, of which Appellant was the sole
occupant. Sparks, while in uniform, approached the driver’s side of the vehicle and knocked on
the window. According to Sparks, Appellant drove out of the driveway and continued away in
the vehicle at a high rate of speed. The video footage depicting these events from Sparks’s body
camera and his patrol vehicle’s dash camera was introduced into evidence.
       Nacogdoches County Sheriff’s Deputy Charles Simpson also testified on the State’s
behalf. Simpson testified that on July 5, 2020, he observed a vehicle he knew primarily to be
operated by Appellant. After verifying that Appellant had active warrants, Simpson initiated a
traffic stop on the vehicle. Simpson stated that the driver of the vehicle was not Appellant, but
that when he asked the driver to roll down the vehicle’s rear window, he observed Appellant
lying on the floor in the backseat area, which he characterized as Appellant’s attempting to
conceal himself. Simpson detained Appellant and, during his ensuing search of the vehicle,
located both methamphetamine and marijuana concealed behind the vehicle’s glove
compartment.
       At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Appellant violated the terms
and conditions of his respective community supervision as alleged in the State’s motion.
Thereafter, it revoked Appellant’s community supervisions, adjudicated him “guilty” of
aggravated assault and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and sentenced him to
imprisonment for ten years and sixteen years respectively. This appeal followed.

                        ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
       Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State. Appellant’s counsel states that he 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. He further relates that he is well-acquainted with the facts in this case. In
compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of

                                                 2
the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for
appeal.1 We likewise have reviewed the record for reversible error and found none.

                                                  CONCLUSION
         As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s
counsel moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits.
Having done so and finding no reversible error, we grant Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave
to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
         As a result of our disposition of this case, Appellant’s 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 review of this case by the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for
discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. Any
petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this
opinion or the date that 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(a). Any petition for discretionary review should
comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman,
252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.
Opinion delivered June 8, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                             (DO NOT PUBLISH)

         1
           In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief,
notified Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response,
and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d
313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief
has expired and no pro se brief has been filed.

                                                          3
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                              JUNE 8, 2023

                                         NO. 12-22-00231-CR

                                    CLAYTON ALAN MEISCH,
                                           Appellant
                                              V.
                                     THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                           Appellee

                                Appeal from the 145th District Court
                      of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F1421057)

                       THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief 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., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.