John W. Blackwell, III v. State ( 2010 )

                                                            NO. 07-09-0048-CR

                                                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                                    FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                                                AT AMARILLO

                                                                     PANEL B

                                                            FEBRUARY 22, 2010

_______________________________

                                                       JOHN W. BLACKWELL, III,

                                                                                                                        Appellant

                                                                              v.

                                                          THE STATE OF TEXAS,

                                                                                                                        Appellee

_______________________________

                        FROM THE 137^TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

                           NO. 2008-421,861; HON. CECIL G. PURYEAR, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Anders Opinion

_______________________________

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

After a jury trial, John W. Blackwell, III, was convicted of assault on a family member with a prior conviction for the same.  His punishment, which was twice enhanced, was assessed by the jury at 80 years confinement.   Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.

 His appointed counsel has now filed an Anders[1]  brief in which he certifies that, after diligently searching the record, he has concluded that the appeal is without merit. Along with his brief, he has filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing him of counsel’s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a brief or response pro se.  This court also notified appellant of his right to do the same. Appellant filed a voluminous response on November 24, 2009.

In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed four potential areas for appeal.  However, he has also explained why each potential issue lacks merit. 

            In turn, appellant raised ten issues (with various subparts) in his pro se response.   Upon considering them and the brief of appellant’s attorney and conducting our own review of the record and pertinent law, as required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), we likewise conclude that there is no reversible error.

            Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment is affirmed.[2]

                                                                                    Per Curiam

Do not publish. 

---

[1]Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).

[2]Appellant also has a right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review from the opinion of this court.