Court Opinion

ID: 9401104
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-10 06:10:24.259677+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:50.815546
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed June 8, 2023

                                     In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                  __________

                             No. 11-22-00202-CR
                                 __________

                      JAMES LEE DUVALL, Appellant
                                        V.
                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                      On Appeal from the 35th District Court
                              Brown County, Texas
                         Trial Court Cause No. CR28049

                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
      The trial court convicted Appellant, James Lee Duvall, of the second-degree
felony offense of online solicitation of a minor. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.
§ 33.021(c), (f) (West Supp. 2022). The trial court found the enhancement allegation
to be true and assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for twenty years in
the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. See id.
§ 12.42(b) (West 2019). 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 arguable issues for the appeal and that the appeal is without merit. 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.

                                                         JOHN M. BAILEY
                                                         CHIEF JUSTICE

June 8, 2023
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