Court Opinion

ID: 3090713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 03:57:05.790282+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:30.251895
License: Public Domain

In
The
                                                Court
of Appeals
                        Sixth
Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
 
                                                ______________________________
 
                                                             No. 06-11-00072-CR
                                                ______________________________
 
 
                                DAVID RAMON MITCHELL,
Appellant
 
                                                                V.
 
                                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 
 
                                                                                                  

 
 
                                       On Appeal from the 159th
Judicial District Court
                                                           Angelina County, Texas
                                                         Trial Court
No. CR-29649
 
                                                    
                                              
 
 
 
                                          Before Morriss, C.J.,
Carter and Moseley, JJ.
                                        Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss

                                                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
 
            The
testimony at David Ramon Mitchell’s bench trial for deadly conduct[1]
portrayed him, in drunken anger, discharging a firearm a few times in the
direction of an occupied building in an apartment complex in Lufkin, Angelina
County,[2]
Texas.  From his conviction and the subsequent
imposition of a sentence of seven years’ confinement, Mitchell appeals.
            Mitchell’s
attorney on appeal has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the
proceedings in detail.  Counsel has thus
provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect,
there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. 
This meets the requirements of Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford
v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
            Counsel
mailed a copy of the brief and a letter to Mitchell May 31, 2011, informing Mitchell
of his right to file a pro se response and of his right to review the record.  No response has been filed.  Counsel has also filed a motion with this
Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.  
            We have
determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous.  We have independently reviewed the clerk’s
record and the reporter’s record, and find no genuinely arguable issue.  See
Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605, 623 (2005).  We therefore agree with counsel’s assessment
that no arguable issues support an appeal. 
See Bledsoe v. State, 178
S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 

            We
affirm the judgment of the trial court.[3]
 
 
 
                                                                                    Josh
R. Morriss, III
                                                                                    Chief
Justice
 
Date Submitted:          August
12, 2011         
Date Decided:             August
15, 2011
 
Do Not Publish
 
 
 

[1]See Tex.
Penal Code Ann. § 22.05(b)(2), (e) (West 2011) (knowingly discharging
firearm in direction of habitation, reckless as to occupancy; felony of third
degree).
 

[2]Originally appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals,
this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to
its docket equalization efforts.  See Tex.
Gov’t Code Ann. § 73.001 (Vernon 2005). 
We are unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Twelfth Court of
Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue.  See
Tex. R. App. P. 41.3.
 

[3]Since
we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to
withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case.  No substitute counsel will be appointed.  Should appellant wish to seek further review
of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either
retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or appellant
must file a pro se petition for discretionary review.  Any petition for discretionary review must be
filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last
timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this Court.  See
Tex. R. App. P. 68.2.  Any petition for discretionary review must be
filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case.  See
Tex. R. App. P. 68.3.  Should a petition for discretionary review be
filed after September 1, 2011, it should be filed directly with the Texas Court
of Criminal Appeals.  See Texas Court of Appeals Misc. Docket
No. 11-004, July 12, 2011.  Any petition
for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of
the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.  See Tex.
R. App. P. 68.4.