Court Opinion

ID: 9915683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-06 11:11:20.878628+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:18:36.714187
License: Public Domain

NOS. 12-23-00188-CR
                                      12-23-00189-CR

                         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

              TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                    TYLER, TEXAS

DARIUS REGGIE,                                  §      APPEAL FROM THE 114TH
APPELLANT

V.                                              §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                        §      SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                     PER CURIAM
       Darius Reggie 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 was charged by indictment with the felony offenses of evading arrest with a
vehicle and aggravated assault against a public servant, both alleged to have occurred on January
28, 2022. Appellant pleaded “guilty” to both offenses. The trial court found Appellant “guilty”
of evading arrest and imposed a probated sentence of ten years’ imprisonment. The court
deferred a finding of guilt in the aggravated assault case and sentenced Appellant to a ten-year
term of community supervision.
        On May 4, 2023, the State moved to revoke Appellant’s community supervision in both
causes and proceed with adjudication based upon his failures to complete monthly community
service hours and submit to urinalysis testing. Shortly thereafter, the State moved to withdraw
the motion and amend the terms of Appellant’s community supervision, including an increased
monthly requirement of community service hours and assignment to a higher level of
supervision.
         In July 2023, the State again moved to revoke Appellant’s community supervision in both
causes based on Appellant’s additional violations of his community supervision requirements,
including failures to complete monthly community service hours, submit to urinalysis testing,
pay court costs as ordered, and complete educational requirements. The trial court held a hearing
on the State’s motion, at which Appellant pleaded “true” to the violations as alleged in both
causes. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Appellant violated the terms of
his community supervision.             The court revoked Appellant’s community supervision and
sentenced Appellant to ten years’ imprisonment for the offense of evading arrest. The court also
adjudicated Appellant “guilty” of aggravated assault against a public servant as charged in the
indictment and sentenced Appellant to thirty-five years’ imprisonment. 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 she 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. She further relates that she 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
the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for
appeal. 1 We likewise 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.

          1
            In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief (which
addresses both cause numbers), notified Appellant of her motions 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 or
briefs. The time for filing such a brief has expired and no pro se brief has been filed.

                                                         2
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 either must retain an attorney to file a petition for
discretionary review on his behalf or 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 January 3, 2024.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                             (DO NOT PUBLISH)

                                                          3
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                           JANUARY 3, 2024

                                         NO. 12-23-00188-CR

                                        DARIUS REGGIE,
                                            Appellant
                                               V.
                                      THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                            Appellee

                                Appeal from the 114th District Court
                        of Smith County, Texas (Tr. Ct. Nos. 114-1233-22)

                        THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs 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.
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                           JANUARY 3, 2024

                                         NO. 12-23-00189-CR

                                        DARIUS REGGIE,
                                            Appellant
                                               V.
                                      THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                            Appellee

                                Appeal from the 114th District Court
                        of Smith County, Texas (Tr. Ct. Nos. 114-1234-22)

                        THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs 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.