David Lee Stone v. State ( 2015 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-15-00211-CR
DAVID LEE STONE, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 47th District Court
Potter County, Texas
Trial Court No. 67,842-A, Honorable Dan L. Schaap, Presiding
November 18, 2015
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
David Lee Stone, appellant, appeals his conviction for injury to a child. Appellant
pled guilty without the benefit of a plea agreement. Testimony was heard by the trial
court and punishment was assessed at twenty years in prison. Appellant’s counsel has
filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief, wherein 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
1
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a pro se response.
So too did he represent that the appellate record was provided to appellant. By letter
dated October 13, 2015, this court also notified appellant of his right to file his own brief
or response by November 12, 2015, if he wished to do so. To date, no response has
been received.
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel
discussed one potential area for appeal which involved prosecutorial misconduct.
However, he then explained why the issue lacked merit.
In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of
counsel’s conclusions and to uncover arguable error pursuant to In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991). After doing so, we concurred with counsel’s conclusions.
Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment is affirmed.2
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
2
Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal
Appeals.
2