Taylor Duane Reese v. State ( 2014 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-14-00166-CR
TAYLOR DUANE REESE, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 108th District Court
Potter County, Texas
Trial Court No. 65,788-E, Honorable Douglas Woodburn, Presiding
December 4, 2014
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
Appellant, Taylor Duane Reese, entered a plea of guilty, pursuant to a plea
bargain, to the offense of continuous violence against the family 1 and, in accordance
with the plea agreement, was placed on five years deferred adjudication. The State
subsequently filed a motion to proceed with adjudication. Following a hearing on the
State’s motion, the trial court adjudged appellant guilty and sentenced him to seven
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 25.11(a) (West 2011.
years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice. Appellant gave notice of appeal. We will affirm.
Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his
motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that she has diligently reviewed the record, and in
her opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be
predicated. Id. at 744–45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities,
there is no error in the trial court’s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that she
has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw, and
appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter.
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The Court has also
advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Additionally, appellant’s counsel
has certified that she has provided appellant with a copy of the record to use in
preparation of a pro se response in digital format and a motion to seek a printed copy of
the record should appellant not have access to the digital copy. See Kelly v. State, 436
S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant has not filed a response.
By her Anders brief, counsel reviewed all grounds that could possibly support an
appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and
made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any
arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,
109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim.
2
Ohio App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the
appeal is frivolous.
Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court’s
judgment is affirmed.2
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
Do not publish.
2
Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send her client a copy of the
opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary
review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.
3