Clyde Garnett Land, III v. State ( 2013 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-13-00099-CR
CLYDE GARNETT LAND, III, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 242nd District Court
Hale County, Texas
Trial Court No. B17581-0803, Honorable Edward Lee Self, Presiding
December 5, 2013
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
Clyde Garnett Land, III, appellant, was charged with theft, a state jail felony and,
after pleading guilty, was sentenced to twelve months in a state jail facility. His
sentence was suspended, and appellant was placed on community supervision for four
years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s community
supervision which motion was dismissed when appellant became current on his fees.
The State, later, sought to have appellant’s probation revoked on other grounds. The
court granted the motion and sentenced appellant to twelve months in a state jail facility.
Appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1
brief, wherein he certifies that, after diligently searching the record, 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 belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant’s right to appeal
pro se. By letter, this court also notified appellant of his right to file his own brief or
response by November 15, 2013, if he wished to do so. Appellant filed a response
wherein he generally stated he has grounds to pursue the appeal, however, he
mentioned none.
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel
discussed potential areas for appeal which included the sufficiency of the evidence to
revoke probation, and the propriety of the sentence assessed. However, he then
explained why the issues 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
Do not publish.
1
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
2
Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal
Appeals.
2