Bobbie Lee Sanders v. State ( 2005 )

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-04-00013-CR

Bobbie Lee Sanders,

                                                                      Appellant

 v.

The State of Texas,

                                                                      Appellee

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court # 2002-1263-C

MEMORANDUM Opinion

Appellant Bobbie Lee Sanders was indicted on counts one, two, and three of aggravated sexual assault, and on count four of sexual assault.  Tex. Pen. Code Ann. §§ 22.011, 22.021 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05). A jury convicted him on counts one, three, and four; the jury convicted him of the lesser-included offense of indecency with a child on count two.  Id. § 22.11(a)(2), (d) (Vernon 2003).  The jury assessed punishment at sixty years in prison on counts one and three, ten years on count two, and twenty years on count four.  The State filed a motion to cumulate sentences.  The judge granted the motion, pronounced sentence, and rendered judgment: concurrent terms of sixty, ten, and sixty years on counts one, two, and three, respectively, and twenty years on count four to run consecutively.  Appellant’s counsel filed an Anders brief.  See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).  We will affirm.

Counsel, in his brief, considers issues in areas relevant to an appeal of a jury trial: (1) indictment; (2) pre-trial motions; (3) voir dire; (4) opening statements and closing arguments; (5) sufficiency of the evidence; (6) objections to evidence and the court’s rulings; (7) jury charges; (8) verdicts; (9) juror conduct; (10) sentence and judgment; (11) post-trial motions; and (12) effectiveness of trial counsel.  See Sowels v. State, 45 S.W.3d 690, 691 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, no pet.).  Counsel’s brief contains references to both the record and applicable statutes, rules, and cases and discusses why counsel concludes that the record does not present any arguable issues.  See id. 

We have conducted an independent review of the record to discover whether there are arguable grounds for appeal.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  We determine there are none.  The indictment invoked the district court’s jurisdiction, and punishment was assessed within the range of punishment for the offenses.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. Counsel must advise Sanders of our decision and of
his right to file a petition for discretionary review.  See Sowels v. State, 45 S.W.3d 690, 694 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, no pet.).

BILL VANCE

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed January 5, 2005

Do not publish

[CRPM]

75pt;margin-bottom: 0in;margin-left:47.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -23.75pt'>8.       In the March 9^th, 2006 issue of the Bryan-College Station Eagle, Judge Langley is quoted in an interview as saying he expects more negative campaigning from his opponent (Mr. Barron) and said, regarding the alleged negative advertising, “unfortunately, I think it is going to continue,” . . . “the only question is how much money are they going to throw at this?”

(1 C.R. at 15-17 (ellipsis in ¶ 8 in orig.); see id. at 21); Tex. Code Jud. Conduct, Canon 2, reprinted in Tex. Gov’t Code Ann., tit. 2, subtit. G app. B (Vernon 2005 & Supp. 2008).