Court Opinion

ID: 2820040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-07-24 05:25:36.663679+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:22:39.348128
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-14-00361-CR

                         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

               TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                    TYLER, TEXAS

BRANNON MATTOX,                                 §      APPEAL FROM THE 114TH
APPELLANT

V.                                              §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                        §      SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                     PER CURIAM
       Brannon Mattox appeals his conviction for evading arrest in a vehicle. 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
       In April 2013, Appellant was indicted for the offense of evading arrest in a motor vehicle,
a third degree felony as alleged. Appellant entered into a negotiated plea agreement and pleaded
“guilty” to the offense. In accordance with the agreement, the trial court placed Appellant on
deferred adjudication community supervision for a five year period.
       In December 2013, the State filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt. The State
alleged that Appellant failed to report to his community supervision officer and failed to pay
various costs associated with his community supervision.       Appellant pleaded “true” to the
allegations.   After a hearing, the trial court declined to revoke Appellant’s community
supervision. Instead, it amended the terms of his community supervision by ordering him to
complete the Substance Abuse Felony Punishment program (SAFP) while on community
supervision. The trial court also extended the term of his community supervision to eight years.
         In November 2014, the State filed another application to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt.
The State alleged in its motion that Appellant failed to adhere to the terms of his community
supervision by failing to report to his community supervision officer and that he failed to
complete the SAFP. Appellant pleaded “true” to the allegations. Accordingly, the trial court
adjudicated his guilt, revoked his community supervision, and sentenced him to imprisonment
for five 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 states that he has 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. He further relates that he 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 have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found
none. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

                                                  CONCLUSION
         As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (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 agree with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal is
wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we grant his motion for leave to withdraw, and affirm the trial
court’s judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2.
         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

         1
           Counsel for Appellant states in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of this
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
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 petition for discretionary review pro se. 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. 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 July 22, 2015.
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

                                             JULY 22, 2015

                                         NO. 12-14-00361-CR

                                       BRANNON MATTOX,
                                            Appellant
                                               V.
                                      THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                            Appellee

                                Appeal from the 114th District Court
                         of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0547-13)

                        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.