Court Opinion

ID: 4068908
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-30 00:13:46.051715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:07.838271
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-14-00109-CR

                           IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                 TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                      TYLER, TEXAS

BRANDON DURRELL MEDFORD,                          §     APPEAL FROM THE 114TH
APPELLANT

V.                                                §     JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                          §     SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                       PER CURIAM
          Brandon Durrell Medford appeals his conviction for indecency with a child. 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 indecency with a child. Pursuant to a
negotiated plea agreement, Appellant pleaded “guilty” to the offense and the trial court placed
him on five years of deferred adjudication community supervision. Later, the State filed an
application to proceed to final adjudication, alleging that Appellant had violated the terms of his
community supervision. Appellant pleaded true to all of the allegations. The trial court found the
allegations to be true, adjudicated Appellant’s guilt, and assessed his punishment at
imprisonment for eight years. 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 relates that he has reviewed the appellate record and found no
arguable error or jurisdictional defects. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812
(Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel’s brief contains a thorough professional evaluation
of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.1
         We have considered counsel’s brief and conducted our own independent review of the
record. Id. at 811. We have found no reversible error.

                                                   CONCLUSION
         As required by Anders and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991), Appellant’s counsel has 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, we agree with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal
is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and affirm
the judgment of the trial court.
         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 these cases 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 pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed
within thirty days from the date of this court’s judgment or the date the last timely motion for
rehearing was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). 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 Rule 68.4 of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.
Opinion delivered September 2, 2015.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                              (DO NOT PUBLISH)

         1
            Counsel for Appellant certified in his brief that he provided Appellant with a copy of the brief. Appellant
was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired and no pro se brief has
been filed.

                                                           2
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                         SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

                                         NO. 12-14-00109-CR

                               BRANDON DURRELL MEDFORD,
                                        Appellant
                                           V.
                                  THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                        Appellee

                                Appeal from the 114th District Court
                         of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-1087-12)

                        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.