Court Opinion

ID: 9929697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-03 11:11:28.418065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:44:20.334001
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-23-00134-CR

                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                 TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                           TYLER, TEXAS

JOHN ELTON CREEL, JR.,                                   §       APPEAL FROM THE 3RD
APPELLANT

V.                                                       §       JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                                 §       ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

                                       MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                           PER CURIAM
        John Elton Creel, Jr. appeals his conviction for occlusion assault. 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 occlusion assault. 1 He pleaded “not guilty,”
and the matter proceeded to a jury trial.
        At trial, Laura Creel testified that she and Appellant were married but separated and not
getting along well at the time of the offense. Appellant told Laura to bring one of the couple’s
two pickup trucks to his house. She did so, even though she needed the truck for work, but she
kept the keys and walked back down the driveway. Appellant entered the driveway in the other
truck, exited the truck, and asked for the keys. Laura refused, and the two scuffled. Appellant
grabbed Laura’s neck, pushed her partially into the truck, and began hitting her while choking

         1
           A third-degree felony, punishable by imprisonment for a term of not more than ten years or less than two
years and a possible fine not to exceed $10,000.00. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.34 (West 2019), 22.01(b)(2)(B)
(West Supp. 2023).
her. She was unable to yell and could breathe only slightly. Laura struggled to free herself and
ran toward Appellant’s brother’s house. Appellant retrieved a firearm and began shooting at her.
He followed Laura to his brother’s house and told him that he was going to kill her. Laura
escaped through the back door and hid in a meadow until the police arrived. She had a large
knot on her head, bruising on her forehead, red marks on her neck that later became bruises, and
a sore neck for several days.
         Other evidence corroborated Laura’s story. Appellant’s nephew testified that he heard
yelling and informed his father. They saw Appellant chasing Laura toward their house while she
screamed for help. Laura ran inside the house, and Appellant pointed the gun at his nephew and
brother, threatening to kill them if they did not “give [him] the bitch.” Police photographs show
blood on Laura’s nose, bruising on her forehead, and red marks on her neck.
         Appellant testified that he and Laura argued because she trespassed on his property. He
denied hitting, choking, or shooting at her. Appellant suggested that the knot and bruising on
Laura’s head and her bloody nose were caused by a tumor.
         Ultimately, the jury found Appellant “guilty” and assessed his punishment at
imprisonment for a term of eight years and a probated fine of $10,000, and recommended that he
be placed on community supervision. The trial court followed the jury’s recommendation and
placed Appellant on community supervision for a term of ten 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 reviewed the record, found no reversible points of
error to support an appeal, and determined the appeal is frivolous. In compliance with High v.
State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief contains a
professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be
advanced. 2

          2
            In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel attempted to provide Appellant with a copy of the
brief, notify him of his motion to withdraw, inform him of his right to file a pro se response, and facilitate his review
of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). However, counsel’s
correspondence was returned with no forwarding address, and counsel informed this Court that he has no alternative
address for Appellant. This Court’s correspondence likewise was returned. The time for filing a pro se brief has
expired, and none was filed.

                                                           2
         We conducted an independent review of the record in this case and found no reversible
error. See id. We conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See id.

                                                  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 and finding no reversible error, we grant
counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
         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 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 either the date of this opinion or the date that 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 January 31, 2024.
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

                                          JANUARY 31, 2024

                                         NO. 12-23-00134-CR

                                    JOHN ELTON CREEL, JR.,
                                           Appellant
                                              V.
                                     THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                           Appellee

                                  Appeal from the 3rd District Court
                     of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 3CR-21-35427)

                        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.