Matthew Clark Taylor v. State ( 2006 )

                                                                NOS. 12-05-00247-CR

12-05-00248-CR

12-05-00249-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

MATTHEW CLARK TAYLOR,       §                      APPEAL FROM THE 7TH

APPELLANT

V.        §                      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE   §                      SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM

            Matthew Clark Taylor filed a motion for rehearing, which is overruled.  The court’s opinion of August 25, 2006 is withdrawn, and the following opinion is substituted in its place.

            Matthew Clark Taylor appeals his convictions for aggravated assault on a public servant, for which he was sentenced to three terms of imprisonment for life.  Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).  We affirm.

Background

            Appellant was charged by separate indictments with three counts of aggravated assault on a public servant by use or exhibition of a deadly weapon.  The trial court admonished Appellant, and Appellant pleaded “guilty” as charged in each cause.  The trial court accepted Appellant’s “guilty” pleas and proceeded to conduct a trial on punishment.  Ultimately, the trial court sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for life for each conviction.  These appeals followed.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

            Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).  Appellant’s counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the records reflect no reversible error and that there is no error in any of the cases upon which an appeal can be predicated.  He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in the cases.  In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the cases and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.

            Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief in which he raised issues concerning (1) evidentiary sufficiency, (2) the voluntariness of his guilty pleas, (3) improper admonishment, (4) an allegedly improper finding that Appellant was competent and not suffering from mental illness, (5) ineffective assistance of counsel in the underlying proceedings and on appeal, (6) the trial court’s failure to consider a lesser included offense, (7) illegal search and seizure, and (8) the trial court’s failure to permit Appellant to withdraw his guilty pleas.¹  We have reviewed the records for reversible error and have found none.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Conclusion

            As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw.  We carried the motion with our consideration of the merits.  Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s judgments are affirmed.

Opinion delivered December 1, 2006.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

---

¹ We have construed Appellant’s response to his counsel’s Anders brief and the issues raised therein liberally in the interest of justice.