Court Opinion

ID: 3073379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 00:54:42.743052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:50:10.073400
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-13-00125-CR

                           IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

               TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                      TYLER, TEXAS

EDDIE DEAN TADLOCK, JR.,                          §      APPEAL FROM THE 114TH
APPELLANT

V.                                                §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                          §      SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                       PER CURIAM
       Eddie Dean Tadlock, Jr. appeals his conviction for burglary of a habitation. Appellant’s
counsel filed a brief asserting 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
       A Smith County grand jury indicted Appellant for the offense of burglary of a habitation
and also alleged that he was previously convicted of a felony. A jury found Appellant guilty of
the offense as charged in the indictment. Appellant pleaded true to the enhancement paragraph,
and the jury assessed punishment at twenty-eight years of imprisonment with no fine. This appeal
followed.

                         ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
       Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous. Counsel
states that he has reviewed the appellate record and that he is unable to find any reversible error or
jurisdictional defects. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807
(Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel’s brief presents a thorough chronological summary of the
procedural history of the case and further states why counsel is unable to present any arguable
issues for appeal.1 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Gainous, 436 S.W.2d at 138;
see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988).
         We have considered counsel’s brief and have conducted our own independent review of
the record. We found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005).

                                                    CONCLUSION
         As required, Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See In re Schulman,
252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d
503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We are in agreement with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal
is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion for leave to withdraw is granted, and the judgment
of the trial court is affirmed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a).
         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 further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either
retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or he must file a pro se petition for
discretionary review. See id. at 408 n.22. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed
within thirty days after the date of this opinion or after the date this court overrules the last timely
motion for rehearing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review must be
filed with the clerk of 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.
                                                                         JAMES T. WORTHEN
                                                                            Chief Justice

Opinion delivered February 5, 2014.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

                                               (DO NOT PUBLISH)

         1
           Counsel states in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of his brief. Appellant
was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such brief has expired, and we have received no
pro se brief.

                                                            2
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                            JUDGMENT
                                          FEBRUARY 5, 2014

                                          NO. 12-13-00125-CR

                                  EDDIE DEAN TADLOCK, JR.,
                                          Appellant
                                             V.
                                    THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                          Appellee

                                 Appeal from the 114th District Court
                         of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-1771-12)

                       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 Appellant’s
counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment of the court below be in all things
affirmed, and that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.
                    James T. Worthen, Chief Justice.
                    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.