Robert R. Hockaday, II v. State ( 2004 )

NO. 07-04-0301-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
NOVEMBER 1, 2004
______________________________
ROBERT R. HOCKADAY, II,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 364TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
NO. 2001-438,306; HON. BRADLEY UNDERWOOD, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and REAVIS, JJ.
Appellant Robert R. Hockaday, II appeals from a judgment convicting him of
aggravated assault. We affirm.
The trial court initially deferred adjudication of guilt and placed him on community
supervision for four years. The State subsequently moved to adjudicate him guilty. After
a hearing on the allegations set out in the State’s motion and after receiving evidence on
the issue of punishment, the trial court found appellant guilty and sentenced him to 20
years imprisonment.
Appellant’s counsel has moved to withdraw, after filing a brief pursuant to Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 492 (1967) and representing that
he has searched the record and found no arguable grounds for reversal. The motion and
brief illustrate that counsel notified appellant of his right to review the appellate record and
file his own brief. So too did we inform appellant that any pro se response or brief he cared
to file had to be filed by October 27, 2004. At this time, appellant has failed to file either
a response or brief or request an extension to do so.
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed
five possible areas for appeal. They involve 1) whether the trial court erred in failing to
pronounce him guilty prior to his punishment hearing, 2-3) the legal and factual sufficiency
of the evidence to justify a sentence of 20 years, and 4-5) whether the trial court erred in
admitting evidence not relevant to sentencing and whose probative value was substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. However, counsel then proceeded to explain
why each argument lacked merit.
We have also conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of
appellate counsel’s conclusions pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991). Finding no reversible error, we grant the motion to withdraw and affirm the
judgment.
Brian Quinn
Justice
Do not publish.
2