William Curtis Peden v. State ( 2013 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-13-00157-CR
WILLIAM CURTIS PEDEN, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 355th District Court
Hood County, Texas
Trial Court No. 8395, Honorable Ralph H. Walton, Jr., Presiding
November 4, 2013
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
William Curtis Peden, appellant, was charged with criminal non-support, a state
jail felony and, after pleading guilty, was sentenced to twenty-four months in a state jail
facility but sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on community
supervision for three years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s
community supervision which led to the trial court extending his time on community
supervision. Later, the State, again, sought to have appellant’s probation revoked, and
appellant pled true to failing to report, complete community service hours, and paying
restitution and community supervision fees. The trial court granted the motion to revoke
and assessed two years 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, he has concluded
that 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 September 30, 2013, if he wished to do so. To date,
no response has been received.
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Do not publish.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