Court Opinion

ID: 3107287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 06:12:28.267097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:44:47.241442
License: Public Domain

NO. 07-10-00292-CR

                               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                        FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                       AT AMARILLO

                                          PANEL B

                                        JULY 7, 2011

                           DOMINIC TOMLINSON, APPELLANT

                                               v.

                           THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

       FROM THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 3 OF TARRANT COUNTY;

                NO. 1169831D; HONORABLE ELIZABETH BERRY, JUDGE

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Appellant, Dominic Tomlinson, entered a plea of guilty to the offense of

aggravated robbery.1 After entry of appellant’s plea of guilty, the trial court ordered the

preparation of a pre-sentence investigation report.           Subsequently, the trial court

conducted a hearing on punishment. Following the receipt of evidence on punishment,

appellant was sentenced to confinement for a period of 20 years in the Institutional

Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant appeals the judgment

of the trial court. We will affirm the judgment of the trial court.

       1
           See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a) (West 2011).
       Appellant=s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his

motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in

his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be

predicated. Id. at 744-45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813

(Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling

authorities, there is no error in the trial court=s judgment. Additionally, counsel has

certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to

withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this

matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The court has

also advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a

response. By his Anders brief, counsel reviewed all grounds that could possibly support

an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and

made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any

arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824

(Tex.Crim.App. 2005).     We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with

counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

                                            2
      Accordingly, counsel=s motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court=s

judgment is affirmed.2

                                                       Mackey K. Hancock
                                                            Justice

Do not publish.

      2
        Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client
a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a
pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.

                                            3