Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

McRoy v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District, Tyler

May 23, 2018

DANNY MCROY, APPELLANT
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

          Appeal from the 402nd District Court of Wood County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 22, 965-2016)

          Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          PER CURIAM

         Danny Leon McRoy appeals his conviction for evading arrest or detention with 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

         Appellant was charged by indictment with evading arrest or detention with a vehicle. The indictment further alleged that Appellant used a vehicle as a deadly weapon in the commission of the charged offense and had two prior felony convictions. Appellant pleaded "guilty, " and the matter proceeded to a jury trial on punishment. Appellant pleaded "not true" to the enhancement allegations and the deadly weapon allegation. But following the presentation of evidence and argument of counsel, the jury found the allegations to be "true" and assessed Appellant's punishment at imprisonment for thirty-seven years. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly, and 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 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 likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

         Conclusion

         As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant's counsel 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 Appellant's counsel's motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the trial court's judgment.

         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 Schulm an, 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 petition for discretionary review pro se. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that 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.

         JUDGMENT

         THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.