Court Opinion

ID: 6334448
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-04-23 06:13:16.930571+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:37.485726
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed April 21, 2022

                                     In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                  __________

                               No. 11-21-00106-CR
                                   __________

                   DARYL WAYNE WRIGHT, Appellant
                                        V.
                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                     On Appeal from the 244th District Court
                              Ector County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. C-18-1072-CR

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
       The jury convicted Daryl Wayne Wright of the offense of assault family
violence by impeding breathing.       Appellant pled true to two enhancement
allegations, and the jury assessed his punishment at imprisonment for thirty years.
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 meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel provided Appellant with a copy of
the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, 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 with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals seeking review by that court. 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 response to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the
procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the
record, and we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.1
        We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the
trial court.

                                                                 PER CURIAM
April 21, 2022
Do not publish.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